Micron collected $12.75 billion in customer deposits in fiscal 2026. That supports liquidity today. But customers who meet purchase commitments get their deposits back, while separate pricing bands affect future margins.
For investors, the question is what the company owes in return. And how that changes the financial outlook.
What investors should take away
Micron: model the repayments separately. Nearly all the deposits are scheduled to be repaid in 2029–31. Keep those outflows separate from assumptions about purchases, selling prices and production costs.
AXT: higher market prices may not fully reach earnings. Coherent negotiated price protection alongside its capacity-funding commitment. Test margin forecasts against contracted prices.
Core Scientific: avoid counting the same cash twice. Construction funding from CoreWeave is credited against future bills, reducing later cash collections.
Nebius: separate funded contracts from capacity still to sell. Customer prepayments help finance some contracted capacity. Uncommitted capacity remains exposed to future demand and pricing.
Upfront funding can strengthen liquidity today while shaping cash flow and margins for years. The size of the payment alone does not establish who secured the better deal.
We reviewed disclosures from 20 AI infrastructure companies. The question was simple: what does the customer’s money actually buy?
We want to highlight four cases that show why the answer matters.
#1 Micron: separate the deposits from the pricing agreement
Micron collected $12.75 billion in customer deposits in fiscal 2026. Nearly all are scheduled to be repaid in 2029 to 2031.
Customers who meet minimum purchase commitments get their deposits back. If they fall short, Micron may retain some or all. Falling memory prices alone do not establish a right to keep the money.
Most strategic customer agreements also have minimum and maximum price bands. Customers gain greater pricing certainty; Micron gains purchase commitments while accepting limits on repricing.
There is protection for Micron too: management expects these agreements, even at minimum prices, to deliver gross margins above its peak quarterly margins in past cycles. That is management’s expectation, not a guaranteed result.
The modelling implication: keep deposit repayments, committed purchases, selling prices and production costs as separate assumptions. The deposit balance cannot stand in for them.
#2 AXT and Coherent: customer funding comes with price protection
Coherent’s agreement provides for a $22.3 million prepayment to develop and reserve six-inch indium phosphide wafer capacity at AXT.
The payment is applied against future purchases. Coherent also negotiated protection against AXT charging more than the agreed price or its lowest offer to another buyer for comparable products, subject to minimum orders and raw-material adjustments.
Refund rights are conditional. Coherent has remedies for defined delivery failures. If AXT meets its capacity commitment but Coherent misses minimum orders, AXT can terminate and retain the unused prepayment.
Both sides benefit: AXT gets a funding commitment; Coherent secures capacity and protects its purchasing costs. Redacted terms prevent us from quantifying which side secured the better economics.
For AXT investors: test margin forecasts against contracted prices. Do not assume every rise in market prices reaches earnings.
#3 Core Scientific: early funding reduces later collections
CoreWeave helps pay for Core Scientific’s data-centre development upfront. In return, it receives credits that reduce later bills.
The debt terms reflect that timing. Under Core Scientific’s $3.3 billion secured notes, scheduled principal repayments start only after both rent begins under the relevant leases and the customer credits run out. Interest starts earlier, in November 2026.
The repayment structure accommodates the initial credit period. It does not remove construction or cash-flow risk.
For investors: do not count the construction funding again as a fresh cash receipt when the customer uses its credits. Model credit usage alongside operating costs, interest and principal repayments. Construction delays can postpone collections while obligations remain.
#4 Nebius: collect upfront without committing every future unit
Nebius reported that roughly 70% of Q2 deals included prepayments covering 50 to 60% of related capital spending.
Those figures concern that deal cohort, including future capacity. They do not describe funding across the entire business.
Management also said it was deliberately leaving some 2027 capacity uncommitted for shorter-term opportunities.
That creates exposure in both directions. Strong future demand could make the retained capacity valuable. Weaker demand could leave it harder to sell at attractive prices.
For investors: distinguish contracted capacity from capacity still available to sell, and stress-test the prices and usage the latter eventually achieves.
What the wider comparison adds
In our study, seven of the 20 companies disclosed specific customer capacity/prepayment or construction-funding arrangements. Five disclosed customer or data-centre credit support or residual-value protection.
These are overlapping disclosure categories in a selected sample, not industry prevalence estimates or comparable cash totals. They include funding promises whose receipt was not verified.
The comparison shows funding and financial protection travelling in several directions across the supply chain. A company’s position in that chain does not establish which party negotiated the stronger economics.
What to watch in the next results
Look for deposit repayments, credit usage, realised pricing under customer agreements and whether new capacity is delivered and used as expected.
The company receiving the money is not necessarily getting the better deal. Follow what it owes in return.
Apply this research to a company you follow
When researching this note, we started with one Tessara investigation, followed by primary-source verification and editorial expansion across 20 companies.
You can read the full note and 20-company comparison above. Enjoy.
Teng
Founder, Tessara
Tessara is independent research, not investment advice. Tessara and its principals may hold positions in the securities discussed. Figures retain their source reporting dates.