Sure. Sometimes they cause global financial crises as part of that process.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania [1] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-partners-with-apol...
Loans are sold off, which means that they can raise more money to make loans. Each time you do that, you create more money out of thin air, which is profit.
The problem is, it only works if everyone believes.
THe problem with 2008 is that people stopped believing and demanded banks settle immediately. which then meant that they needed to raise cash, which meant looking at their assets, which meant looking at the risks of those assets, and then it went to shit.
Investors bought a lie packaged by the financial institutions. They shouldn’t have believed in the first place because the risk was junk-level but not sold as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation
> In the early 2000s, the debt underpinning CDOs was generally diversified, but by 2006–2007—when the CDO market grew to hundreds of billions of dollars—this had changed. CDO collateral became dominated by high risk (BBB or A) tranches recycled from other asset-backed securities, whose assets were usually subprime mortgages. These CDOs have been called "the engine that powered the mortgage supply chain" for subprime mortgages, and are credited with giving lenders greater incentive to make subprime loans, leading to the 2007–2009 subprime mortgage crisis.
It's hard to ignore the similarities.
There is no issue with collateralized debt as long as the risk is properly assessed, the whole point of securitization is that you can take on higher risk for higher reward of an asset that was previously just one single piece of risk.
The nuance here, though, was that the CDOs and similar instruments were sold in a tranched fashion, and the super-senior tranche was made to look as if it was very low risk, as normal for tranches instruments.
But when your entire series of tranches all consists of trash, then which tranche you were in didn't really matter.
CDO and CDO2 instruments hid this distinction really well, and unfortunately the ratings agencies bought into it and sold crap as AAA securities.
There were a lot of factors that contributed to the 2008 crisis: adverse selection leading to low quality portfolios, mispriced assets, high leverage which magnified losses, lower-quality securities being held by investors who couldn't really afford to bear the losses on them, etc. But the fundamental concept of tranching is not actually that bad, even though every time people read about it they think it's the exact same as 2008. Banks have been tranching debt since long before 2008 and they have been tranching debt ever since. Not just mortgages either, but all kinds of debt.
It's very hard to understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding something.
They just kept the music going, more ratings issued was more money for them. Paid by the bank creating the security, what could go wrong
What if this winds up being the case for the trillions dumped into AI in hopes of future revenues?
https://www.reuters.com/business/oracle-corp-goes-high-stake...
> Cloud computing giant Oracle Corp is on the cusp of a junk-grade credit rating and its shares have tanked as the artificial intelligence hyperscaler becomes the fall guy of investors' concerns over the sector's debt-fuelled spending binge.
The specific problem of the 2008 financial crisis was that the banks were going out of their way to obfuscate the source of their CDOs so that, even when it was clear in 2007 that the subprime mortgage market was unraveling, you couldn't look at your instruments and figure out whether or not you were affected. The problem wasn't the CDO, it was the obfuscation. And as far as I'm aware, the current debt offerings aren't being obfuscated--if you want to avoid the data center debt because you think it's junk, just avoid the stuff being touted as data center debt.
yes, i specificly remember when Lehman went under the banks stopped trusting each other's ability to assess their own exposure. The banks stopped lending to other banks and that's when Paulson got on his knees (literally, i think there's a picture of him on his knees in front of Nancy Pelosi) asking congress for cash to guarantee loans. The side effects started squirting out everywhere i think even Mcdonald's was hours away from bankruptcy because the corporate paper market suddenly ceased to exist. Also, money market returns turned negative briefly, that's like a negative interest rate on a traditional savings account bad. It was bizarro world for maybe 72hrs.
The movies don't really do justice to just how upside down and nonsensical the financial world became. It was a knife's edge for 2 or 3 days.
My fear is that this is all going to turn into one big front-running exercise where those connected with the Trump crime family are warned to get out first, banks that swear allegiance are bailed out next, and the rest of us get to hold the bag.
Are these companies worth their incredibly high valuations?
Yeah... maybe think on that a bit in this context.
Inflation's way up. Real wages are down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/14/business/economy/inflatio...
> Wage growth has remained relatively muted over the past year. That, combined with higher inflation, means Americans are earning less for an hour of work. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, fell 0.5 percent in September, and were down 0.7 percent from a year earlier. It was the sixth straight month of year-over-year declines in real earnings.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/household-debt-delinquencies-ri...
> The share of seriously delinquent auto loan balances has hit a record high this year, while nearly 13% of credit card balances are seriously past due — close to their 2010 peak in the aftermath of the housing crisis — according to recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/09/american-debt-delinquency.ht...
> The ability of U.S. families to stay current on their debts worsened over the past three years, hitting levels not seen since the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Federal Reserve reported Friday.
Where are they getting this data? This directly contradicts their claim:
> Real average hourly earnings for all employees decreased 0.5 percent from August to September, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today… From September 2025 to September 2026, real average hourly earnings decreased 0.7 percent, seasonally adjusted.
Your chart appears to be weekly earnings, not per-hour wages. Having to pick up more shifts or a second job to make ends meet supports the point, in my book.
It feels like each bubble gets bigger.
Well you would expect that given that the market keeps getting bigger and the money in circulation keeps getting bigger.
Inflation alone means each bubble should be bigger than the last all other things being equal.
Not sure its just related to centralization, probably more so that information can flow more freely now, but I fully agree.
>We lent £1,000 to John Sozzleby at 10%. We quantify the risk level as “iffy”, which is 42.6 qualm points above "dodgy". and are willing to sell you the debt for £700. its a great deal!
Lots of names to obfuscate the same financial yada yada.
... and from the linked piece ...
| Banks do not sell down debt they are confident in
... I have no claim to expertise but both of these can't be true.
I wouldn't worry about it anyway, you can be sure when the day comes "they'll be to big to fail".
> They sell down debt when they are worried about concentration, which is exactly what "approaching internal limits" means in plain English: too much of this bank's balance sheet is now one bet on one sector holding up.
Which is correct, but kind of weird because being confident in a credit and being worried about concentration are not really mutually exclusive things. You can be pretty confident in an investment but not want it to constitute a majority of your portfolio. (Bankers know that even very strong credits are never 100% guaranteed to pay out.)
Let's say I offered you the chance to pay $100 to get $120 back if at least one coin toss in five came up heads. That's a pretty good bet, right? But would you bet your house on it?
/s