This week’s TMT Finance conference has highlighted a fundamental shift in the digital infrastructure market: data centre financing and customer contracting are no longer parallel processes. The customer lease has become the credit, and the financing structure increasingly shapes how that lease must be written. As deployments scale and portfolios mature, these two functions have merged into a single, interdependent design challenge.

Published: 29 January 2026
Author: Jas Sahotay

The sector is not simply maturing. It is industrialising at remarkable speed. Operators, investors and lenders are rebuilding the commercial and financial architecture of the market in real time, and the implications are significant.

A more sophisticated and demanding capital stack

Financing a data centre can no longer be approached like underwriting real estate. The modern capital stack spans senior secured debt, portfolio borrowing bases, holding company structures, warehousing facilities and capital markets instruments such as rated bonds and asset‑backed securities.

The United States already operates a mature securitisation ecosystem for data centres, with alternative business structures accounting for nearly a third of financings in 2024. Europe has completed only a limited number of such transactions, with regulatory complexity, market fragmentation and portfolio scale slowing adoption. Despite this, the trend is clearly toward institutionalisation and capital markets participation.

Against this backdrop, financing structures now influence commercial contracts as much as contracts influence financing outcomes. Lenders expect clarity, consistency and firm allocation of responsibilities. Operators targeting ratings or capital markets execution must draft customer agreements with investor‑level precision, not simply customer satisfaction.

Customer contracts as the core drivers of financeability

Customer agreements have become the primary determinants of lender appetite. For financiers, the commercial contract is now the underwriting model. Critical factors include:

• lease structure and renewal visibility
• allocation of delivery and operational risk
• interaction with utilities and grid operators
• SLA design and performance mechanisms
• transparency and evidence for rating agency analysis.

Scale magnifies each of these variables. A contract that is acceptable for a 5 to 10 MW deployment may be unbankable above 100 MW, where any ambiguity becomes a material credit concern. Operators such as Virtus, Pure, CyrusOne and Kao Data noted that scale can unlock deeper lender relationships, securitisation pathways and portfolio diversification. Yet it also demands institutional‑grade contracting, robust renewal assumptions and defensible modelling.

Financing is no longer secured through structure alone. It depends on the operator’s ability to navigate shifting demand cycles, regulatory developments and an increasingly AI‑driven market.

How geography shapes credit outcomes

Location has become a decisive variable in financeability. In Tier 1 FLAP markets, high residual value, dense connectivity, mature hyperscale demand and predictable renewals reduce underwriting uncertainty and support more favourable debt pricing.

Secondary and emerging European markets face a different landscape. They often experience more AI‑driven, non‑linear demand, greater dependence on constrained power infrastructure, lower residual value and more conservative lender behaviour. These markets therefore require higher equity commitment to reach financial close.

While the US securitisation market accelerates capital access and reduces financing costs, Europe continues to face structural and regulatory hurdles that slow convergence, although momentum is increasing as portfolios grow in scale and standardisation.

Development and delivery risk as a rising point of tension

At hyperscale, development and delivery risk can no longer be managed through traditional construction and procurement models. Operators now carry significant exposure in areas they cannot fully control, particularly grid connections, utilities, long‑lead equipment and supply chain delays.

Financiers are placing increased scrutiny on:

• what operators can actually control
• how risk is shared across EPC contractors, utilities, fibre providers and customers
• evidence of delivery track record and remediation capability
• how early‑stage equity absorbs pre‑construction exposure.

The current allocation of delivery risk is increasingly imbalanced. With power scarcity intensifying and timelines lengthening, the prevailing model is unsustainable. A structural rebalancing of risk allocation is required rather than incremental adjustments.

A sector growing up fast

Data centres have moved beyond real estate. They are now global mission‑critical infrastructure supported by complex, interconnected financing frameworks. Success in this environment depends on the ability to:

• align contracts and financing structures from the outset
• produce documentation that capital markets can navigate with ease
• rebalance delivery risk amid growing power and supply chain constraints
• build long‑term strategic relationships with lenders and investors.

Financing and contracting are no longer sequential processes. They have merged into a single strategic discipline that will shape the next decade of digital infrastructure.