Debt investors are worried that the biggest tech companies will keep borrowing until it hurts in the battle to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence.

That fear is breathing new life into the market for credit derivatives, where banks, investors and others can protect themselves against borrowers larding on too much debt and becoming less able to pay their obligations. Credit derivatives tied to single companies didn’t exist on many high-grade Big Tech issuers a year ago, and are now some of the most actively traded US contracts in the market outside of financial sector, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.

While contracts on Oracle have been active for months, in recent weeks, trading on Meta Platforms and Alphabet has become much more active. Contracts tied to about $895 million of Alphabet debt are outstanding, after netting out opposite trades, while around $687 million is tied to Meta debt. With AI investments expected to cost more than $3 trillion, much of which will be funded with debt, hedging demand can only grow, according to investors. Some of the richest tech companies are rapidly turning into some of the most indebted.

“This hyperscaler thing is just so ginormous and there’s so much more to come that it really begs the question of ‘do you want to really be nakedly exposed?’,” said Gregory Peters, co-chief investment officer at PGIM Fixed Income. Credit derivatives indexes, which offer broad default protection against a group of index members, aren’t enough, he said.

Six dealers quoted Alphabet CDS at the end of 2025 compared with one last July, while the number of Amazon.com Inc. CDS dealers rose to five, from three, DTCC data show.

Some providers even offer baskets of hyperscalers’ CDS, mirroring baskets of cash bonds that are rapidly being developed. Activity among hyperscalers really picked up in the fall when news around the debt requirements of these companies became front and center. A Wall Street dealer said his trading desk is able to regularly quote markets of $20 million to $50 million for a lot of these names, which didn’t even trade a year ago.
For now, hyperscalers are having little trouble financing their plans in the debt market. Alphabet’s $32 billion debt sale in three currencies this week drew orders for many times more that amount within 24 hours. The technology company successfully sold 100-year bonds, an astonishing move in an industry where businesses can rapidly become obsolete.Morgan Stanley expects borrowing by the massive tech companies known as hyperscalers to reach $400 billion this year, up from $165 billion in 2025. Alphabet said its capital expenditures will reach as much as $185 billion this year to finance its AI build-out. That kind of exuberance is what has some investors worried. London hedge fund Altana Wealth last year bought protection against Oracle defaulting on its debt. The cost was about 50 basis points a year for five years, or $5000 a year to protect $1 million of exposure. The cost has since risen to around 160 basis points.

BANK USERS
Banks that underwrite hyperscaler debt have been significant buyers of single-name CDS lately. Deals to develop data centers or other projects are so big and happening so fast underwriters are often looking to hedge their own balance sheets until they can distribute all of the loans tied to them.

“Expected distribution periods of three months could grow to nine to 12 months,” said Matt McQueen, head of credit, securitized products and muni banking at Bank of America Corp., referring to loans on projects. “As a result, you’re likely to see banks hedge some of that distribution risk in the CDS market.”

Wall Street dealers are rushing to meet the demand for protection.

“Appetite for newer basket hedges can be expected to grow,” said Paul Mutter, formerly the head of US fixed income and global head of fixed income sales at Toronto-Dominion Bank. “More active trading of private credit will create additional demand for targeted hedges.”

Some hedge funds see banks’ and investors’ demand for protection as an opportunity to profit. Andrew Weinberg, a portfolio manager at Saba Capital Management, described many CDS buyers as “captive flow” clients — bank lending desks or credit valuation adjustments teams for example.

Leverage remains low at most of the big tech companies, while bond spreads are only slightly tighter than the corporate index average, which is why so many hedge funds, including his, are willing to sell protection, according to Weinberg.

“If there’s a tail risk scenario, where will these credits go? In a lot of scenarios, the big companies with strong balance sheets and trillion dollar market caps will outperform the general credit backdrop,” he said.

But for some traders, the frenzy of bond selling has all the hallmarks of complacency and mispriced risk.

“The sheer amount of potential debt suggests that these companies’ credit risk profiles could come under some pressure,” said Rory Sandilands, a portfolio manager at Aegon Ltd., who says he has more CDS trades on his book than a year ago.

India’s expanding healthcare infrastructure and rising domestic demand form the core investment thesis behind Groww’s BSE Hospitals ETF, says CEO Varun Gupta. He highlights structural drivers such as insurance penetration, capacity expansion and improving operating metrics, positioning organised hospital players as long-term beneficiaries of India’s evolving healthcare ecosystem.

Edited excerpts from a chat:

How does the Groww BSE Hospitals ETF differentiate itself from existing healthcare or pharma-focused passive products, and what specific gap in investor portfolios are you aiming to address through a pure-play hospitals strategy?

Today, pharma-focused passive funds are heavy on the listed pharmaceutical companies, as they should be; even the healthcare-focused products in India are only able to provide exposure to a broad mix of healthcare companies, including pharma, hospitals, and others. The Groww BSE Hospitals ETF, in contrast, offers targeted exposure to the hospitals segment, which accounts for nearly three-fourths of India’s healthcare industry. An important point to note is that pharma companies often have substantial global exposure and can be influenced by external factors, while hospitals are largely domestic businesses and therefore more closely aligned with India’s structural healthcare demand trends.

By focusing on hospital service providers, this ETF seeks to address a portfolio gap for investors looking for a pure-play opportunity in healthcare delivery, one of the fastest-growing and rapidly transforming segments in the healthcare ecosystem.

Given that hospitals account for nearly three-fourths of India’s healthcare market and are seeing improving financial metrics, what gives you confidence that this structural growth story can sustain over the next market cycle?

While healthcare as a whole benefits from structural tailwinds, the hospital segment has distinct drivers that reinforce its long-term growth trajectory. Rising health insurance penetration, increasing affordability, higher incidence of lifestyle diseases, medical tourism, and a gradually ageing population are all expanding the market for organised hospital players.
At the same time, the sector is witnessing sustained capacity expansion through rising capex, alongside improving occupancy levels and operating efficiencies. Given the long gestation periods and high entry barriers, established players are well-positioned to benefit from this incremental demand. India today has relatively low beds-per-capita and doctor density levels compared to global counterparts, which indicate significant headroom for potential expansion in the coming years.

With gold and silver seeing renewed investor interest amid global uncertainties, are you noticing a meaningful shift in retail asset allocation away from equities, or is this more of a tactical diversification trend?

Indians have traditionally allocated to precious metals, so the recent rise in flows to gold and silver ETFs should not be viewed as a shift away from equities. Rather, it reflects the ongoing financialisation of savings, where exposure that may earlier have been taken through physical gold or silver is now moving into regulated financial instruments.
We view this as a structural evolution in how allocations are expressed, rather than a short-term tactical shift driven purely by market uncertainty.

January saw gold ETFs getting more inflows than total equity inflows. Is this a sign of euphoria building in the market for bullion?

It’s not unusual to see flows into an asset class pick up during periods of strong performance. However, describing this as euphoria may be overstating the case. While some portion of flows could be momentum-driven, gold ETF inflows were rising even before the recent rally.

The category’s AUM has grown over 13 times between March 2019 and March 2025, indicating that the trend is structural and long-term in nature, rather than purely sentiment-driven.

How should investors think about allocating between equities and precious metals at this juncture, especially given elevated valuations in certain equity pockets and strong momentum in gold and silver?

We believe that asset allocation decisions should be guided by long-term strategic frameworks rather than short-term valuation or momentum signals, and that both equities and precious metals should be a part of a diversified portfolio. Equities remain central to wealth creation over time, while precious metals can provide diversification benefits, particularly during periods of uncertainty.

While equities typically form a larger allocation given their link to long-term economic growth, the exact mix should reflect an investor’s risk tolerance, time horizon and financial goals.

For someone investing in a gold ETF, for example, how should one decide which is the best product to buy? Many investors look at returns and expense ratios. What are the parameters one should look at before selecting an ETF from a particular fund house?

While returns and expense ratios are important, investors should also closely evaluate tracking error, which reflects how efficiently the ETF mirrors underlying gold prices. Lower tracking error indicates better replication, while higher tracking error may imply greater deviation from the underlying gold prices, leading to inconsistent performance relative to the commodity it seeks to track.

In addition, liquidity, in the form of trading volumes and bid–ask spreads, is also a parameter to consider before selecting an ETF.

Many investors also get confused between gold ETFs and gold mutual funds. For someone who already has a demat account and is looking to invest for the long term, does it make more sense to buy an ETF rather than an MF?

Both Gold ETFs and Gold Mutual Funds serve a similar purpose, providing exposure to gold in a regulated, financial format and over the long run, the difference in returns is likely to be marginal. The choice need not materially alter long-term outcomes.

The key distinction lies in structure and convenience: Gold ETFs require a demat account and are traded on the exchange like stocks, while Gold Mutual Funds can be bought and redeemed directly with the AMC without a demat, offering greater ease of access for certain investors.

Mumbai: In a move that could support stronger credit expansion, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has restored the use of default loss guarantees (DLGs) for non-bank lenders, rolling back last year’s curbs that had forced them to make higher provisions on loans sourced through fintech partners.

Non-banking finance companies (NBFC) can now factor in DLGs when setting aside buffers for potential loan losses, provided the guarantee forms an integral part of the loan arrangement, the RBI said last week. The regulator also said lenders must update their loss estimates each time the guarantee is invoked, as the protection available reduces with every use.

For NBFCs, this change reduces provisioning pressure, improves profitability, and frees up balance-sheet capacity for fresh lending. For fintechs, meanwhile, it would encourage greater loan origination. The revised framework takes effect immediately.

“This is a significant relief for NBFCs like us that are engaged in digital lending partnerships with Fintech Lending Service Providers (LSPs),” said Ravi Narayanan, MD & CEO, SMFG India Credit. “This regulatory clarity will support the industry in safely scaling digital lending, enabling NBFC-fintech partnerships to expand access to under-penetrated retail customer segments,” he added.
The move marks a reversal from the central bank’s May 2025 directive. Back then, the regulator had instructed NBFCs to exclude DLGs offered by fintech lending service providers when calculating the loss buffers required for stressed or risky loans. The earlier stance, mandatory from March 31, 2025, had led lenders to build full provisions on these portfolios, raising credit costs and dampening the appeal of fintech-originated loans.

The Provisioning Poser
The earlier rules had forced several NBFCs to take sizable additional provisions in the March quarter, ET had reported on May 27 last year. SMFG India Credit reported a 44% fall in FY25 profit after booking Rs 115 crore in extra DLG-related buffers, while Credit Saison India’s profit dropped 22% following ₹178 crore in additional provisioning.Northern Arc Capital also reported an impact of ₹80 crore and had provided ₹63 crore on its books as of March 31, 2025. The RBI had mandated NBFCs to make provisions across the March, June and September quarters of 2025.

“This amendment shall result in reversal of additional provisions carried thus far by the entities and free up the capital. This will be favourable for lending partners in such loan arrangements and support overall credit expansion. It is also timely considering that the revised co-lending guidelines are effective from January this year,” said AM Karthik, co-group head, financial services, Icra Ratings.

DLGs – usually capped at 5% and often backed by fixed deposits provided by digital lending partners – had been widely used in digital lending and co-lending structures. The 2025 rules had effectively neutralised their benefit, leading to a pullback in origination volumes for fintechs and higher credit costs for NBFCs.

With the latest amendment, the RBI aims to harmonise the treatment of DLGs across digital lending, co-lending and credit-risk transfer guidelines, while ensuring lenders do not overstate the protection offered by such guarantees.

Verizon has added on a step for customers wanting to unlock their fully paid-off devices by introducing a new waiting period in certain cases.

Under Verizon’s current device-unlocking policy, customers who pay off their payment agreement balance online or in the My Verizon app have to wait 35 days before their phone will be unlocked.

The same delay applies if a Verizon Gift Card is used to buy a smartphone or customers pay off the remaining balance.

The delay also applies to postpaid customers who pay off a device installment plan online or in the app. 

NEW IPHONE SCAM TRICKS OWNERS INTO GIVING PHONES AWAY

Customers who complete their installment agreements with scheduled monthly payments will continue to have their devices unlocked automatically after the final payment, according to the policy.

Customers may be able to avoid the 35-day delay by paying off the remaining balance in person, but only at a Verizon corporate store using what the company describes as a secure payment method.

These include cash, an EMV chip-enabled credit card or a contactless option like Apple Pay or Google Pay.

Payments made online, in the app, by phone, at authorized retailers or through other non-secure methods may also trigger the 35-day waiting period.

HAGERTY ASKS FCC TO SANCTION VERIZON OVER DISCLOSURE OF SENATE PHONE DATA

A Verizon spokesperson said customers who meet the requirements for a faster unlock will usually receive it within 24 hours and added that the 35-day window is to allow time for fraud prevention, according to Ars Technica.

The policy change came after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated Verizon’s longstanding requirement to automatically unlock devices 60 days after activation.

The change, for example, would limit customers’ ability to quickly unlock a phone before international travel to use a local SIM card abroad.

NEW IPHONE SCAM TRICKS OWNERS INTO GIVING PHONES AWAY

It could also make it complicated for customers hoping to sell a paid-off device immediately or switch carriers without interruption and find corporate stores.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

For prepaid customers, devices bought from Verizon stay locked for 365 days of paid, active service.

After that period, Verizon says it will automatically remove the lock, unless the device has been reported stolen or flagged for fraud.

FOX Business has reached out to Verizon for comment.

Baron is an asset management firm focused on delivering growth equity investment solutions. Founded in 1982, Baron has become known for its long-term, fundamental, active approach to growth investing. Baron was founded as an equity research firm, and research has remained at the core of its business. Note: This account is not managed or monitored by Baron Capital, and any messages sent via Seeking Alpha will not receive a response. For inquiries or communication, please use Baron Capital’s official channels.