> We all know what's going on

Do we?

The payments Meta et al are making to the SPV are payments for data-center services. The data centers are then buying the assets and issuing the debt. Now, Meta is obligated to make those payments to the SPV. Which looks like debt. But they are only obligated to do so if the services are being provided.

Blue Owl, meanwhile, owns 80% of the datacentre venture. If the price of chips crashes, that's Blue Owl's problem. Not Meta's. If Meta terminates their contract, same deal. (If Beijing nukes Taiwan and the chips quintuple in value, that's Blue Owl's gain. Mostly. Not Meta's.)

> Why don't they just say "actually no, we all know that's debt and it's owned by Meta so we will consider it when rating their credit."?

If Meta stopped paying the SPV, the SPV would have the recourse of a vendor. If Meta stopped making payments on its bonds, that would trigger cross defaults, et cetera. Simply put, Meta has more optionality with this structure than it would if it issued its own debt.

The red flag to keep an eye out for are cross guarantees, i.e. Meta, directly or indirectly, guaranteeing the SPV's debt.