AI债务如何重塑信贷市场

很难夸大信贷市场中这一领域的重要性，无论是从整体规模和供应量来看，还是从发行的多年期性质来看，这都是信贷市场不常看到的。

It's hard to overstate the importance of this seam in the credit markets, both in terms of its overall scale and the amount of supply, but also in the multi year nature of the issuance, which is something that the credit market hasn't always seen.

科技公司正以前所未有的规模转向债券市场，为人工智能建设筹集资金。

Tech companies have been turning to the bond markets to raise money for the AI build out at an unprecedented scale.

那么，这波借贷浪潮将如何重塑市场？

So how will this wave of borrowing reshape the markets?

我是艾莉森·内森，这里是高盛交易所。

I'm Allison Nathan, and this is Goldman Sachs Exchanges.

为了讨论这一转变的规模及其对信贷市场的影响，我邀请到了负责信贷策略研究的阿曼达·莱纳姆，以及在全球银行与市场部信贷销售一线工作的扎克·阿布隆。

To discuss the scale of the shift and credit market implications, I'm sitting down with Amanda Lynam, who leads credit strategy research and Zach Ablon, who's on the front lines of our credit sales desk in Global Banking and Markets.

阿曼达、扎克，欢迎来到交易所。

Amanda, Zach, welcome to Exchanges.

谢谢。

Thank you.

我想这是你们两位第一次同时参加节目，所以我很期待这次对话，当然，这也是一个非常热门的话题。

I think this is the first time both of you have been on in So the I'm looking forward to this conversation, very topical conversation, of course.

阿曼达，当我们谈到这个话题时，市场关注的重点一直是股票发行，而供应是信贷市场的主导主题。

Amanda, when we think about this topic, there's been a lot of focus on the equity issuance around supply the dominant theme in the credit markets.

所以请告诉我们，我们的听众，为什么

So tell us, our listeners, about why

会这样。

that is.

没错。

That's right.

首先，非常感谢你们的邀请。

First of all, thank you so much for having us.

所以，很难夸大这个主题在信贷市场中的重要性，无论是从它的整体规模和供应量来看，还是从发行的多年期性质来看，这是信贷市场并不总是能看到的。

So it's hard to overstate the importance of this theme in the credit markets, both in terms of its overall scale and the amount of supply, but also in the multi year nature of the issuance, which is something that the credit market hasn't always seen.

在信贷市场的去杠杆时期，通常这种发行是短暂的，可能只涉及某个行业进行债务融资的并购，或者某个发行人进行债务融资的收购，甚至几年前银行的TLAC相关供应的资本重组。

In periods of releveraging in the credit markets, typically, it's been short lived maybe for an industry that's engaging in debt funded M and A or an issuer that's doing a debt funded acquisition or even the bank's recapitalization of TLAC related supply a couple of years ago.

这次非常独特。

This is very unique.

所以我们的股票分析师已经概述了他们对AI相关资本支出的预期，未来几年将达到数万亿美元的高位。

And so our equity analysts have outlined their expectations for AI related CapEx spending over the next several years to reach into the high trillions of dollars.

我们已经到了资本支出很快接近运营现金流的地步，这为债务市场发挥作用铺平了道路。

We're already at a point where CapEx is quickly approaching cash flow from operations, and so that paves the way for the debt markets to play a role.

现在，关于债务市场将扮演多大的角色，存在很大的不确定性。

Now there's a significant amount of uncertainty as to how large of a role the debt markets will play.

这将取决于这个行业的运营现金流能多快加速增长。

It will depend on how quickly cash flow from operations from this industry can accelerate.

但关键的一点是，有大量的融资需求。

But the key point is that there's a significant amount of financing to be had.

这需要多种市场协同合作来满足这一需求。

It is going to take a variety of markets to work together to service this need.

但归根结底，我们并不担心这个主题的资本获取问题。

But at the end of the day, we're not concerned about access capital for this theme.

我们只是认为，随着这个多年度周期的推进，关于在哪里承担这种风险以及以什么价格承担，将需要进行更细致的讨论。

We just think as the multiyear nature of the cycle goes on, there will need to be a more nuanced conversation about where to actually take this risk and at what price.

很多投资者会把美国投资级债券市场视为理所当然的首选，认为它能承担重任。

And a lot of investors will look to The US IG bond market as kind of the obvious choice to do the heavy lifting.

我们想指出的是，超大规模企业群体在保持投资级评级的前提下能发行多少债券，与债券市场在不偏离发行集中度或市场饱和惯例的情况下能轻松吸收多少，这两者之间存在巨大差异。

And the point that we've made is that there's a big difference between how much the group of hyperscalers can issue while staying investment grade and how much the bond market can easily absorb without veering too far from issuer concentration or market saturation conventions.

我想深入探讨其中一些问题，但在此之前，你提到这些公司都是现金非常充裕的企业。

I do wanna to dig into some of those issues, but before we do, you did reference the fact that these are very cash rich companies.

我们先退一步来看。

Let's just take a step back for a minute.

既然他们有很多现金，为什么还要转向债券市场呢？

Why are they turning to the bond market when they have a lot of cash?

当然。

Sure.

这个趋势实际上始于2025年。

This is a trend that actually started in 2025.

这些公司，也就是超大规模企业群体，在2025年全球发行了1080亿美元的债务。

These companies, the group of hyperscalers, issued $108,000,000,000 of debt globally in 2025.

快进到2026年，今年到目前为止，他们已经发行了1940亿美元的债券。从账面上看，他们的资产负债表上仍然有现金。

Fast forward to 2026 so far this year, they've issued $194,000,000,000 On paper, they still have cash on their balance sheet.

与资本支出相比，他们的运营现金流仍然很充裕。

They still have ample cash flow from operations compared to CapEx.

但我认为他们正在做的是适当地提前布局一个多年投资周期。

But I think what they're doing is appropriately getting ahead of a multiyear investment cycle.

我们几乎可以把它看作是一个资本瀑布，几乎耗尽了这些不同资本市场的深度，包括债务、股权和内部现金流，以便真正为未来的业务投资做好准备。

Almost we think of it as a waterfall of capital, almost exhausting the depth of these different capital markets, debt, equity, their own internal cash flows to really position themselves to be able to invest in this business going forward.

然而，我认为要指出的关键点是，这不仅仅是超级计算巨头在争夺投资者投资组合中的一席之地。

I think the key point to outline, however, is that it's not just about the hyperscalers competing for a place in investors' portfolios.

今年迄今为止，更广泛的人工智能生态系统也发行了大量债券。

There's been issuance from the broader AI ecosystem year to date that's been sizable.

根据我们的估计，我们追踪到近5000亿美元的人工智能相关债务发行。

By our estimates, we track nearly 500,000,000,000 of AI related debt issuance.

所以超级计算巨头实际上只占了其中的40%。

So the hyperscalers have actually only been 40% of that.

所以这也正是让人震惊的地方，不仅仅是金额和多年的持续性，还有供应几乎集中在同一个主题上，投资者需要决定如何配置这部分风险敞口。

And so that's also what makes this really striking is that it's not just the amount and the multi year nature, but it's almost the concentrated nature of the supply in one theme, and investors need to navigate where to take that exposure.

正如你刚才提到的，股权。

And as you just mentioned, equity.

他们可以发行债券。

They can issue debt.

跟我们聊聊为什么选择一种而不是另一种。

Talk to us a little about why one versus the other.

当然。

Sure.

所以我觉得如果要从宏观层面来看，这些公司评级非常高，杠杆率很低，所以它们有大量空间在资本结构中增加债务，同时仍然能够轻松进入投资级债券市场。

So I think if I had to frame it at a very high level, these companies just are so highly rated and so low levered that there's a lot of runway to add debt into their capital structures and still enjoy ample access to the IG capital markets.

我们在制药和电信等行业也见过类似情况，公司出于某种原因战略性地增加杠杆。

We've seen this before in sectors like pharma and in telecom where companies strategically added leverage to their capital structures for a reason.

债务融资的并购就是一个很好的例子。

Debt funded M and A, again, is a great example of that.

作为信用投资者，你希望他们不是为了用债务融资来回购股票。

As a credit investor, you're hoping that they're not doing it for a debt funded share buyback.

这是另一种考量。

This is a different calculus.

但我认为，审慎的资本结构管理应该考虑：我真的需要这么高的评级吗？

But I think it's part of prudent capital structure management to think through, do I really need to be this highly rated?

如果不需要，我该如何策略性地增加债务，以保持强劲的资产负债表，同时实现最低的资本成本？

And if not, how can I strategically add debt in order to preserve a strong balance sheet yet really have the most efficient cost of capital?

如果你仔细阅读这些超大规模公司的声明，他们会多次提到强劲的资产负债表、有韧性的资产负债表，但通常不会提及具体的评级，也不会设定具体的杠杆目标，至少根据我们的审查是这样。

If you read through what these companies are saying, the group of hyperscalers, they make a lot of references to strong balance sheets, resilient balance sheets, but they don't call out specific ratings and they typically don't call out specific leverage targets, at least based on our review.

因此，我认为这为他们策略性地增加债务、增强财务实力以真正投资于业务铺平了道路。

And so I think that paves the way for them to strategically add debt to their capital structures to bolster their financial power to really invest in their business.

而且我认为我们一直在追踪的关键点是，即使这个群体的资本成本略高，基于他们为ROIC（投入资本回报率）设定的回报和目标，继续投资于这一主题可能仍然是有利可图的。

And I think the key point that we've been tracking is that even a slightly higher cost of capital for this group, it's probably still accretive for them to continue to invest in this theme based on the returns and the objectives that they've outlined for the ROIC, the return on invested capital.

所以，我们认为在债务与股权混合方面，这一趋势还处于早期阶段。

So this is a trend that we think is in the early innings in terms of the mix of debt versus equity.

如果我们的股票同事在场，他们会告诉你，这些公司中有些选择发行股票是非常针对具体发行人的。

And if our equity colleagues were here, they would tell you that the choice for some of these companies to issue equity is very issuer specific.

所以我认为这确实取决于他们对股价的最终看法，以及他们想通过资本结构实现什么目标。

And so I think it really does depend on what their ultimate view of where their stock price is and what they're trying to achieve from their capital structure.

有些公司已经这么做了。

Some have done it already.

但总的来说，我觉得我们可以很有把握地说，科技行业整体上长期以来一直评级很高，杠杆率很低。

But in general, I think we feel pretty comfortable saying that the tech sector broadly has been very highly rated and very underlevered for a period of time.

因此，为了战略需要，在资本结构中增加债务有充足的空间。

And so there's ample runway to add debt to the capital structures for strategic need.

Zach，让我把你拉进对话。

Zach, let me bring you into the conversation.

你每天都在和信贷投资者交流。

You're talking to and credit investors every day.

你在交易台上看到了什么？

What are you seeing on the desk?

目前投资者对这种需求怎么看？

What does investor demand for this look like at this point?

这个问题问得好。

So it's a great question.

让我回顾一下，看看过去六个月的情况。

I'll back up, and I'll take a six month snapshot.

我觉得在考虑投资者需求时，要看两个方面。

So I would say there's two things to look at when we think about investor demand.

一个是市场表现。

One is what we've seen in the marketplace.

看看我们的AI领导者篮子，我们创建了很多信用篮子来识别和隔离特定主题。

And when we take a look at our AI leadership basket, right, and we created a lot of baskets and credit to identify and isolate certain themes.

显然，到目前为止最重要的主题是那些与AI相关的因素。

Obviously, most important theme to date has been a number of these sort of AI related factors.

过去十二个月，AI领导者篮子的利差从74个基点的低点扩大到了接近两倍。

When we take a look at the last twelve months for AI leader basket, it's gone from tights of 74 basis points to nearly twice that.

所以市场显然对这些融资有些消化不良，我们在价格上已经看到了这一点。

So the marketplace has clearly expressed some indigestion with some of this financing, and we've seen that in prices.

我认为当我们看新发行市场时，也有一些值得注意的迹象。

I think when we take a look at the new issue universe, there are also signs that are worth noting.

具体来说，当我们考虑保险行业时，看第一季度一些较大的人工智能相关融资，我们会有大约15个保险客户进入那个债券的30年期部分，订单超过5000万美元。

Specifically, when we think about, call it the insurance community, and we look at q one and some of the larger AI related financings that we saw in q one, we would have anywhere from, call it, 15 insurance clients coming in to the thirty year part of that bond complex with $50,000,000 plus orders.

到了第二季度末，这个数字大约减半。

You go towards the end of q two, and that number was about half as big.

所以对我们来说，这象征着这个群体中的一部分，我说的群体是指保险和真实货币投资者，他们实际上是过去几年投资级市场表现的主要驱动力，显然正在失去对这种风险的兴趣。

And so that is emblematic to us that some of this community, right, and when I say community, it's insurance, it's real money, which are really some of the really larger client drivers of the performance in the investment grade market over the last few years, are clearly losing their appetite for this risk.

这可能是业绩表现、集中度限制，以及可能像阿曼达提到的资本支出上升（似乎每年都在增长）的结果，他们需要从集中度的角度重新考虑这些头寸。

And that could be a function of performance, certainly concentration limits, and potentially seeing, as Amanda mentioned, the uptick in capex, which seems to grow every year, and having to think about those deck chairs a bit from a concentration perspective.

请再详细讲讲集中度这个角度。

Walk us through a little bit more about that concentration angle.

这些客户在考虑投资组合平衡时，是否有具体的授权要求？

Do these clients have actual specific mandates in terms of thinking about their portfolio balance?

或者他们是怎么考虑这些集中度问题的？

Or how do they think through these concentration issues?

所以，每个客户都不一样。

So, every client is different.

但确实，客户在单个名称上是有集中度限制的。

But yes, clients certainly have concentration by name.

AI发行的情况让这个问题变得有点棘手。

The AI issuance dynamic has made that a little tricky.

而且就整个市场而言，你知道，阿曼达也提到了，我记得在24年，投资级市场里AI相关的发行量是100亿美元。

And as it relates to the marketplace as a whole, you know, and again, Amanda's touched on this, I think, again, was 10,000,000,000 of AI related issuance in IG in in '24.

那占了年初至今供应量的1%。

That was 1% of year to date supply.

25年我记得是1080亿美元，大概占了7%。

108,000,000,000, I believe, in '25, that was about 7%.

而今年，我们大概到了18%。

And this year, we're at about 18%.

而且这还没算上久期权重的影响。

And that doesn't even tell the story of the duration weight.

今年投资级债券中，15年期以上的发行量有40%来自AI公司或为AI主题提供资金的公司。

So 40% of fifteen year plus issuance in IG this year has been by AI companies or companies that are funding the AI thematic.

这样一来，市场就被搅动了一些。

And so, in doing so, you've shaken up the market a little bit.

我记得在AI相关话题火起来之前，客户都在等30年期的债券发行，但市场上就是没有。

I can remember prior to this AI related conversation, clients waiting for thirty year issuance, like the market just wasn't creating of it.

现在情况完全变了，甚至看具体公司，比如亚马逊，它在投资级指数里的久期权重是最高的。

And that has certainly shifted dramatically, and even when we take a look at specific names, Amazon, for example, is the highest duration weight in the IG index.

去年它才排第20。

Last year, it was number 20.

谷歌现在好像是第18。

Google, I believe, is now 18.

去年它排第86。

Last year, it was 86.

所以你真的能从久期的角度感受到过去十二到二十四个月里事情发生了多大的变化。

So you can really get a sense from a duration perspective of how things have changed over the last twelve to twenty four months.

但在某些层面上，这种久期的延长对你的真实资金客户来说确实很有好处。

But that extension or duration in some levels is really good for your real money clients.

正如你所说，当时这类长久期资产确实有些稀缺。

As you had said, there was sort of a dirt of these long duration assets at some point.

是的。

Yes.

确实如此。

For sure.

早期，我认为市场非常欢迎这种长久期债券的出现。

In early days, I think the market was very happy to see that duration oriented paper in the marketplace.

现在，人们会担心还有多少，来得有多快，收益率曲线的形状会是什么样。

Now, there will be some hand wringing around how much more is there, how fast is it gonna come, what does the curve shape look like.

市场对十年期及以内的债券消化得还算顺利。

The marketplace has had less indigestion with ten year and in.

当我们退一步看，可以回顾一下我们自己的历史，再想想，比如说，亚马逊。

When we take a step back, we can think about our own history, and we can think about, again, just to use Amazon.

三十年前，亚马逊还在网上卖书。

Thirty years ago, Amazon was selling books online.

三十年可以改变很多事情。

A lot can change in thirty years.

显然，亚马逊做得非常好。

Obviously, it worked out extremely well for Amazon.

但对其他人来说，可能就没那么幸运了。

For others, probably less so.

但这有助于理解为什么人们可能不太愿意对一家公司做三十年的押注，尤其是在人工智能出现之后，可能更容易只看三年、五年或十年的前景。

But it can help create the mindset as to why folks may be a little less apt to take a thirty year bet on a company, particularly with the advent of AI, when it just may be easier to take the three year, the five year, the ten year view.

而且过去几个月，我们的订单簿反映出，相比长期债券，人们对短期债券的接受度更高。

And our order books have reflected more ease with shorter duration than out the curve over the last several months.

阿曼达，你让我们了解了这个规模有多大。

And Amanda, you've given us a sense of the scale of this.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但你的预测是什么？

But what are your forecasts?

你预计未来这些规模会达到多少？

What are you expecting down the road in terms of the size of all this?

然后我们来谈谈这些饱和问题。

And then let's get into some of these saturation issues.

当然。

Sure.

所以我认为，考虑到资本支出预估的上调速度，我们认为最合理的方式是将其表述为我们预期通过债务融资的资本支出百分比。

So I think given the pace of upward revision to CapEx estimates, the the way that we thought was most reasonable is to frame this as a percentage of CapEx that we expect to be debt financed.

所以，与其只是给出一个美元数字，我们说的是，好的，以扎克提到的2025年1080亿美元的发行量为例，这实际上占超大规模企业资本支出的27%。

So as opposed to just kind of sticking a dollar estimate on it, we've said, okay, taking that 108,000,000,000 of issuance that Zach mentioned in 2025, that actually represents 27 of CapEx from the hyperscalers.

到目前为止，今年我们已经发行了1940亿美元。

So far this year, again, we've had a 194,000,000,000 of issuance.

我们估计2026年大约有33%，也就是三分之一的资本支出会通过债务融资。

We think that roughly 33% or one third of CapEx will be debt financed in 2026.

这意味着，总体来看，我们预计超大规模数据中心会带来大约2500亿美元的直接供应，先不提项目融资，那个我待会儿再说。

So what that means is that all in, we're bracing for something like 250,000,000,000 of direct supply from the hyperscalers, leaving the project finance aside, which I'll get to.

然后我们预计这会在明年，也就是2027年达到顶峰，到时候预计35%的资本支出会通过债务融资。

And then we expect this to peak next year in 2027 where we expect 35% of CapEx to be debt financed.

这么说的原因是，如果你听这些超大规模数据中心运营商怎么说，就会发现他们的投资和变现之间有三到六个月的延迟，甚至长达两年。

The reason for that is that if you read what these hyperscalers are saying, there's a delay between when they invest and when they can monetize that investment of anywhere from three months to two years.

考虑到资本支出的速度和投资规模，再加上资本支出和经营现金流正在迅速接近同一水平，它们正在趋同。

So given the pace of CapEx spend and the investment, and again, because CapEx and cash flow from operations are quickly approaching the same level, they're converging.

我们现在的情况不像过去几年那样，有那么多过剩的流动性。

We're not in this position where we have excess liquidity as as pronounced as we did in years past.

我们有信心，债务市场会在为这些超大规模数据中心投资提供融资方面发挥更大的作用，就这么简单。

We feel comfortable that the debt markets will play a larger role kind of full stop in financing this hyperscaler investment.

那么，哪些市场承担主要任务，这对信贷表现有非常重要的影响。

Now, which markets do the heavy lifting has very important implications for credit performance.

再说一次，超大规模企业理论上能增加多少债务并仍保持在投资级范围内，这之间的差别很大。

Again, big difference between how much debt hyperscalers could theoretically add and stay well within IG.

举个例子，我们做了一个简单的测算，把超大规模企业的净杠杆率提高到两倍，或者总杠杆率提高到三倍，这两个水平在我看来对投资级评级来说都是非常合理的。

Just for context, we did a simple exercise where we took the hyperscalers up to two times net leverage or three times gross leverage, both of which I view as very reasonable metric levels for IG ratings.

这意味着大约有2万亿美元的额外债务空间。

That implies around the ballpark of 2,000,000,000,000 of incremental debt capacity.

对吧？

Right?

这是一个非常大的数字。

That's a very large number.

而且，这确实是投资级评级中杠杆率中上水平的合理估算。

And, again, that's a reasonable ballpark for mid to upper end of leverage for IG ratings.

实际上，我们认为这并非制约因素。

We actually don't think that's the binding constraint.

在我们看来，真正的制约因素是美国投资级市场能合理吸收多少，然后我们再考虑利用其他市场来填补融资缺口。

The binding constraint in our view is how much can The US IG market reasonably absorb, and then let's go from there and use other markets to fill in that financing void.

所以我们用美国银行作为案例研究。

So we've used The US banks as a case study.

在彭博指数中，美国投资级市场最大的三家发行人恰好是美国银行。

The three largest issuers in The US IG market happen to be US banks using the Bloomberg index.

它们中没有任何一家拥有超过1750亿美元的指数合格债务，也没有任何一家占指数比重超过2.3%。

None of them have more than $175,000,000,000 of index eligible debt and none of them represent more than 2.3% of the index.

所以，如果你简单地把超大规模企业提升到美国银行的水平，那么仅在美国投资级债券市场，就会增加5100亿美元的债务容量。

So if you just very simply bring the hyperscalers up to the level of The US banks, what you would have is an incremental $510,000,000,000 of debt capacity in The US IG bond market alone.

但是，拿它们和银行比较，有没有遇到什么反对意见？

But are getting any pushback on that comparison to banks?

银行？

Banks?

因为两者是有区别的。

Because there are differences.

当我和客户交谈，我们讨论这个美国银行的案例研究，我们讨论，好的，这是市场上最大的发行人。

AMBASSADOR When I talk to clients and we walk through this US banks case study and we walk through kind of, Okay, here's the largest issuers in the market.

这是我们觉得超大规模企业可能达到的水平。

Here's where we think the hyperscalers could get to.

有些客户，可能主要是机构实钱客户，会反驳说，是的，但那个比较可能太慷慨了，原因有两个。

Some clients, potentially it's largely institutional real money clients, will push back and say, yes, but that might be a generous comparison for two reasons.

第一，客户会提到他们对科技板块的股权敞口比对银行的要多得多。

One, clients will mention that they have a lot more equity exposure to the tech sector than they do to banks.

所以，在其他条件相同的情况下，如果他们考虑整个机构的关联敞口并加总起来，他们会说这可能会降低我对超大规模企业或科技债务的需求。

So all else equal, if they're thinking related exposure across their entire institution and adding it all up, they will say that might temper my demand for hyperscaler or tech debt.

再说一次，这不仅仅是超大规模企业。

Again, this is not just the hyperscalers.

这是整个科技行业。

This is tech broadly.

这可能会降低我对相关债务的需求，因为我在很多情况下已经在股票市场上有这个主题的敞口了。

That may temper my demand for related debt because I already have exposure to this theme in the equity market in many instances.

然后第二点正是扎克提到的，长期限债券的发行与短期限债券的处理方式不同。

And then the second point is exactly what Zach referenced, that longer duration issuance is treated differently than that shorter duration issuance.

所以那些一对一的比较可能并不对等。

And so those dollar for dollar comparisons may not be equal.

那5100亿美元的债务容量可能并没有那么大，因为如果这个行业继续偏向收益率曲线的长端，如果投资者从久期的角度来考虑，他们可能会稍微削减一些。

That $510,000,000,000 of debt capacity may not be that large because if the sector keeps skewing towards the long end of the curve, if investors are thinking about it from a duration perspective, they may pare back a little bit.

总的来说，2026年以及到2027年中期，仍然有相当大的发展空间。

All of that is to say there's still a pretty meaningful runway in 2026 and well into 2027.

所以，你刚才提到的银行的可比数字大约是5000亿美元，这可能有点乐观。

So the comparable number used for banks was roughly 500,000,000,000, and that could be somewhat generous, as you just said.

那么，如果我们达到那个上限，会发生什么？

So what happens if we reach that threshold?

再次强调，我们并不担心这个主题的资本获取问题。

Again, to reiterate the point, we are not concerned about access to capital for this theme.

我们只是预期，关于在哪里发行以及以什么价格发行的讨论会更加细致，因为我经常听到投资者问，问题是什么？

We are just expecting there to be a more nuanced conversation about where to issue and at what price because I think that I often hear from investors is, what's the problem?

超大规模企业的杠杆率很低。

The hyperscalers have such low leverage.

美国投资级市场既广阔又深入，流动性也很好。

The US IG market is broad and deep and liquid.

那它不就能承担主要的重任了吗？

Wouldn't that just do the heavy lifting?

我们提出的观点是，信贷投资者不像股票投资者那样分享上涨的收益。

And the point that we've raised is that credit investors don't share in the upside of our equity peers.

我们更关注发行人的集中度惯例和市场饱和度的限制。

We tend to pay more attention to issuer concentration conventions and market saturation limits.

这不是一个硬性的限制。

It's not a hard and fast limit.

对吧？

Right?

在高收益债券中，确实有一些指数将敞口上限设为2%或3%。

So in high yield, there are actually indices that cap the exposure at 2% or 3%.

投资级债券不是这样，但我们认为这将会变得重要。

It's not the case in IG, but it is something that we think will be meaningful.

所以，我更想问的是，哪些市场会填补这个空缺。

So the bigger question I wish I will get to is what markets fill the void.

我们认为，私募市场、其他区域债券市场以及新的结构会填补这个空缺。

And here we think the private markets and other regional bond markets and new structures fill the void.

我们逐一来看。

So taking them in turn.

我们认为私募市场将在这里发挥主要作用。

The private markets we think are going to do the heavy lifting here.

全球范围内，私募信贷、基础设施、房地产和私募股权策略都有大量资金，加起来总共四万五千亿美元。

There's significant significant dry dry powder across private credit infrastructure, real estate, and private equity strategies globally, 4,500,000,000,000 if you add it all up across all categories of private markets.

目前，私募基础设施和房地产在数字基础设施贷款方面做了很多，但界限正在明显模糊。

Right now, private infrastructure and real estate have been doing a lot of the digital infrastructure lending, but the lines are blurring importantly.

我们看到数据中心融资被归类为私募信贷。

We're seeing data center financing categorized as private credit.

我们也看到一些风险债务。

We're seeing some venture debt.

我们也看到一些私募股权方面的投资。

We're seeing some in private equity.

所以我们不太关注这些私募市场策略的具体类别，而更关注有多少融资火力。

And so we're less focused on kind of the actual categories of those private market strategies, but more how much financing firepower is there.

我认为，这让我们有信心，支持这一趋势的资本将会存在。

And that's, I think, what gives us confidence that the capital for this trend will exist.

只是资金来源会有所不同。

It will just come from different pockets.

其他会做出贡献的市场将是在美国以外。

Other markets that will contribute will be outside of The US.

许多超大规模企业已经在用加元、英镑、澳元和日元发行债券。

So a lot of the hyperscalers have already been issuing in Canadian dollar, sterling, Aussie dollar, yen.

讽刺的是，欧洲市场在生成与人工智能相关的供应方面贡献不足，所以那是一个明显的选择。

Ironically, the European market has been under contributing in terms of generating AI related supply, so that's an obvious choice.

然后这些新结构，无论是通过投资级公司债券市场出现的项目融资结构，还是数据中心芯片融资。

And then these new structures, whether they're project finance structures that are coming through the IG corporate bond market that are data center chip financings.

我的同事阿伦·马诺哈尔指出，一旦这些数据中心建成，结构化信贷领域，尤其是资产支持证券，可能会发挥作用。

My colleague Arun Manohar has highlighted that the structured credit universe, so ABS in particular, could play a role once these data centers are finished.

所以这里有很多资金来源可以贡献。

So there's a wide range of capital to contribute here.

我觉得，这几乎就像是一个资本市场的瀑布深度，会被逐渐耗尽。

It's just a matter of, I think, again, we're almost thinking about it as a waterfall capital markets depth that will be exhausted.

那么阿曼达，这次对话几乎完全集中在投资级上。

So Amanda, this conversation has focused almost entirely on investment grade.

但这对其他信贷市场有什么影响吗？

But are there implications for other credit markets?

这是个好问题。

It's a great question.

这确实是一个涉及多种融资渠道的市场。

This is really a market that is involving a multitude of financing channels.

显然，投资级是因为所有超大规模企业都是投资级评级，但我们也看到高收益市场广泛参与。

So obviously investment grade because all of the hyperscalers are rated IG, but we're also seeing broad participation from the high yield market.

实际上，我们也看到了杠杆贷款市场的参与。

We're actually seeing participation from the leveraged loan market.

当我们考虑到预期的项目融资和数据中心交易量时，到2027年将达到3000亿美元。

And when we think about the amount of project finance and data center transactions that we expect, that's 300,000,000,000 in 2027.

这还不包括超大规模企业直接发行的债券。

That is above and beyond the direct issuance from the hyperscalers.

所以重要的是要记住，除了超大规模企业的大量债务融资外，生态系统的其他部分也在填补融资缺口。

So really important to keep that in mind that outside of this large amount of debt financing from the hyperscalers, the rest of the ecosystem is filling in financing around it.

其中很多发生在高收益债券市场，在美国如此，在欧洲也开始看到更多迹象。

A lot of that is occurring in the high yield market both in The US and then also starting to see more signs of that in Europe.

这个市场目前交易仍然相当紧张。

So this is a market that's still trading pretty tight.

接下来还会有相当多的发行。

There's a fair amount of issuance to come through here.

而且，这将是多年持续的现象，市场会逐步填补这个缺口。

And, again, this will be a multiyear phenomenon in terms of the markets filling in the gap.

这些发行量大多规模也相当大。

Most of that issuance has also been pretty chunky in size.

都是数十亿美元的交易。

These are multibillion dollar deals.

所以这实际上把美国高收益市场的平均交易规模推高了不少，这一点也很值得注意。

So it's actually pressured the average deal size of The US high yield market up a fair amount, which is also very notable.

所以是集中风险，有点块状分布。

So concentrated exposure, kind of lumpy exposure.

大部分结构都是五年期。

Most of the structures have been five years.

所以这是杠杆融资市场值得关注的显著模式，不仅仅是投资级。

So it's a meaningful pattern to watch across the leveraged finance market as well, not just IG.

我们在高收益市场也看到了同样的情况。

We see the same in high yield.

再说，投资级市场备受关注，今年至今的供应量中有18%是由人工智能驱动的。

Again, IG gets a lot of publicity that 18% of the year to date supply has been AI driven.

高收益市场的情况也差不多。

It's about the same in the high yield market as well.

我们看到的情况是，在超大规模企业开始扩大利差的那段时间里，高收益市场确实挺住了。

And so what we've seen there is frankly over the period of time where the hyperscalers started to trade wider, we saw high yield really hang in there.

但最近一周左右，高收益市场也开始出现一些消化不良的迹象，就像投资级市场那样。

Over the last week or so, we've started to see high yield follow some of the indigestion we've seen in the IG market.

具体来说，我觉得23笔数据中心合资交易中有17笔现在的交易利差已经超过了发行时的收益率。

Specifically, I think 17 out of the 23 sort of data center JV deals are now trading wide to originated yields.

展望未来，我不想花太多时间讨论芯片融资，但芯片融资的久期会比投资级市场里那些数据中心融资的久期短。

And I think if you look forward, particularly, don't spend a ton of time talking about chip financing, but chip financing was gonna have a lower duration than some of the data center financing that we've seen in the IG market.

再看看高收益的BB级债券市场，上周五收盘时利差大约是165个基点。

And when you take a look at the high yield double b universe, which is trading, I think, went out Friday to a 165 basis points over.

你会发现一些数据中心交易的利差比投资级债券的利差要宽得多。

And you see some of these data center deals coming significantly wider to that, that of IG wrappers.

我觉得高收益市场，尤其是BB级债券市场，现在看起来估值很贵，所以有些问题需要解答。

I think there's some questions that will need to be answered across the high yield spectrum, particularly a double b universe that screens as very rich.

有意思。

Interesting.

所以扎克，我觉得最大的风险就是AI整体表现不佳，然后这个主题本身不再有好的表现。

So Zach, I guess the big risk here is that AI overall disappoints, and the theme itself stops performing.

我觉得你可能会很快感受到这一点。

I think you might feel that very quickly.

除了这些消化问题，如果AI主题开始动摇，你会关注哪些迹象来评估客户情绪？

What are the signs you'd be watching for to assess client sentiment beyond these digestion issues if this AI theme starts to wobble?

我会关注几件事。

I'd be watching a few things.

可能大家都在关注的是资本支出数字，更具体地说是二阶导数。

The thing that probably everybody is watching is capex numbers, and more specifically is the double derivative there.

资本支出数字什么时候会不再像之前那样大幅增长？

At what point do capex numbers stop going up as much as they've been going up?

你知道，它可能继续攀升，但会不会开始放缓？

You know, can continue to climb, but does it start to slow?

我觉得这对大家来说会是一个有趣的数据点。

And I think that will be interesting data point for people.

不过，这会对不同的市场产生不同的影响。

Now, it's gonna impact different markets in different ways.

在很多方面，我们看到客户利用信贷市场，因为它没有像股票那样在AI主题上具有那种杠杆或凸性，所以作为对冲工具。

In many ways, we've seen clients use the credit market, again, because it just doesn't have the same sort of torque or convexity that being long equities has certainly had with regard to the AI theme as a hedge.

但在资本支出开始放缓、AI支出相关的“卖铲人”开始退潮的情况下，我实际上看到信贷会反弹的情景。

But in a world where capex starts to slow, and some of the picks and shovels with regard to the AI spend starts to come off, I actually see a scenario where credit will rally.

我可以看到一种情景：超大规模企业在股市中上涨，而信贷利差显著收窄。

I can see a scenario where the hyperscalers rally in equities and go significantly tighter in credit.

所以那会是一个有趣的事件。

And so that'll be an interesting event.

对于那些认为信贷只是天然对冲且非常不对称的人来说，我觉得这有一定道理。

And for those thinking that credit is just a natural hedge and really asymmetric, I think there's some truth to that.

但你必须观察事态如何发展，因为存在信贷利差收窄而股市下跌的情景。

But you're gonna have to watch how things unfold because there are scenarios where credit will go tighter and stocks will go down.

我还觉得，就新发行市场而言，观察一些交易的发行折价会很有参考价值。

I also think as it relates to the new issue marketplace, watching the new issue concessions on some of these deals will be pretty telling.

发行折价之前大概在两三个基点，但过去几个月市场有些消化不良，像某个大型云服务商的交易折价甚至达到了20个基点。

New issue concessions were anywhere from, call it, two, three basis points prior to some of the indigestion of the last several months, got as big as 20 basis points on a very large hyperscaler deal.

随着云服务商的交易陆续推出，看看市场如何消化这些交易会很有意思。

And as we see hyperscaler deals come to the fore, it'll be interesting to see how the marketplace digest that.

这也是我会关注的另一个数据点。

And that's another data point that I'd be looking for.

阿曼达，你有什么补充吗？

Amanda, anything to add to that?

你在关注什么？

What are you watching?

我脑子里一直想着的一件事是，信贷市场在积极的再杠杆化融资阶段表现最好，前提是这种再杠杆化有明确的终点，可以量化，而且最好公司有足够的时间来适应其资本结构。

I think the one thing that's in the back of my mind is that the credit market works best in funding periods of active releveraging when there's an end in sight, it's quantifiable, and ideally there's a period of time where companies can grow into their capital structures.

理想情况下是去杠杆，但如果不去杠杆，至少也要逐渐适应现有的资本结构。

Ideally, delever, but if not delevering, just kind of growing into their capital structures.

所以我觉得关键是要给投资者一些指引，让他们知道大概能期待多少，以及需要多长时间。

And so I I think the key thing here is that there just needs to be, I think, some guideposts for investors into how much can we expect over what time.

而且我觉得扎克说得对，资本开支会受到密切关注，因为如果能更清楚地了解最终的投资需求，投资者就能更好地把握在信贷市场应该承担多少风险，具体在哪里，以及如何将其与更广泛的AI主题敞口联系起来。

And I think to Zach's point, the CapEx will be so closely watched because I think the more clarity we can get on the final investment need, the better it will be for investors to wrap their arms around how much exposure should I be taking in the credit market, where specifically, and how do I think about that in the context of the broader exposure to the AI theme.

所以我认为这是可控的，尽管在多年期性质和规模方面有些前所未有。

So I think this is manageable even though it's somewhat unprecedented in terms of the multiyear nature and the scale.

但我确实认为我们需要更详细的路线图，比如如果我在这个季度发行债券，并承诺未来几个季度不再回来，这真的能给投资者带来信心。

But I do think we need some more granularity on what is the road map from here in terms of if I'm issuing in this quarter and I'm committing to not coming back for the next few quarters, I think that could really give investors some confidence.

但再说一次，不要夸大这一点，这不仅仅是关于超大规模企业。

But again, not to overstate the point, it's not just about the hyperscalers.

这是更广泛的AI生态系统。

It's the broader AI ecosystem.

最近宣布了一些大型债券交易，甚至不在超大规模子行业里。

There are big chunky bond deals that were announced recently that were not even in the hyperscaler subsector.

所以投资者正在应对这种更广泛的发行趋势，这已成为一个更主导的主题。

And so investors are navigating this broader issuance trend to a much more dominant theme.

而且我觉得这一点也需要记住，

And I think that will also be something to keep in mind as

对。

well.

有意思。

Interesting.

有很多值得思考的地方。

Lots of food for thought.

Zach、Amanda，非常感谢你们的参与。

Zach, Amanda, thanks so much for joining us.

谢谢。

Thank you.

谢谢。

Thank you.

本期高盛交流节目录制于2026年8月3日星期一。

This episode of Goldman Sachs Exchanges was recorded on Monday, 08/03/2026.

如果你喜欢这期节目，我们希望你在Apple Podcasts、Spotify或其他播客平台上订阅，并给我们留下评分和评论。

If you enjoyed the show, we hope you'll subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and leave us a rating and comment.

我是艾莉森·内森。

I'm Allison Nathan.

感谢收听。

Thanks for listening.

本文所表达的观点和意见截至发布日期，如有变更，恕不另行通知，且可能不一定反映高盛或其关联机构的机构观点。

The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication subject to change without notice and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates.

所提供的材料仅供参考，不构成投资建议、高盛任何实体就采取任何特定行动提出的推荐，也不构成购买或出售任何证券或金融产品的要约或招揽。

The material provided is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products.

本材料可能包含前瞻性陈述。

This material may contain forward looking statements.

过往业绩并不预示未来结果。

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

高盛及其关联机构均不对本文所含陈述或信息的准确性或完整性作任何明示或暗示的陈述或保证，并且不对因依赖此类信息而造成的任何损失承担任何责任。

Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties expressed or implied as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose.

提到的每个第三方组织的名称均为其各自公司的财产，此处仅用于信息和标识目的，不暗示任何此类公司与高盛之间存在任何所有权或许可关系。

Each name of a third party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs.

提供文字记录仅为方便起见，可能与原始视频或音频内容有所不同。

A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content.

未经高盛明确书面同意，任何接收者不得复制、分发、出版、全部或部分转载本材料，或向任何其他人披露。

This material should not be copied, distributed, published, reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs.

有关本材料中提及的发行人（如有）的研究适用的披露信息，可通过您的高盛代表或访问 www.gs.com/research/hedge.html 获取。

Disclosures applicable to research with respect to issuers, if any, mentioned herein are available through your Goldman Sachs representative or at www.gs.com/research/hedge.html.

高盛不认可任何候选人或任何政党。

Goldman Sachs does not endorse any candidate or any political party.

版权所有 2026。

Copyright 2026.

高盛。

Goldman Sachs.

保留所有权利。

All rights reserved.