According to Bloomberg Business, 2026 could bring some wild financial and consumer shifts. The analysis predicts OpenAI, valued as high as $830 billion, might issue corporate bonds to fund its massive cash burn, expected to hit $17 billion this year and $35 billion next. Meanwhile, Pop Mart International Group could end artificial scarcity for its popular Labubu toys, flooding shelves to test true brand demand. In Hong Kong, the Cheng family behind distressed developer New World Development may play tough in restructuring, refusing to throw good money after bad. Finally, the red-hot private credit industry could shrink as public markets compete and the risks of low-margin lending become clearer.
OpenAI Bonds
This is a fascinating idea. OpenAI needing to tap the bond market feels like a real coming-of-age moment for the AI industry. We’re used to these companies living on venture capital and big-tech partner money forever. But burning through tens of billions a year changes the game. The comparison to WeWork is cheeky but telling—it highlights how even “can’t fail” unicorns eventually have to play by old-school finance rules if they want to keep the lights on. And let’s be real, relying on partners like Oracle to raise debt for you isn’t a long-term strategy. It’s a dependency. Issuing bonds would force OpenAI to have a real, levered balance sheet that the market can scrutinize. That’s a level of transparency and pressure they’ve largely avoided so far.
Labubu Unchained
Here’s the thing about Pop Mart and the “scarcity” model: it works until it doesn’t. The entire hype economy around collectibles is built on FOMO. But what happens when you satisfy that demand? Is Labubu a lasting icon or just a fad? Flooding the market would be an incredibly bold, and frankly risky, experiment. It would immediately kill the secondary market and enrage scalpers, but it might also democratize the brand and prove its staying power beyond the hype cycle. For a stock as debated as Pop Mart, this would be the ultimate test. Do people love the product, or just the thrill of the chase? I’d love to see them try it, just for the market reaction alone.
Hong Kong Tycoons’ New Deal
This prediction cuts to the core of how family conglomerates operate. The analysis basically says: don’t expect a bailout. The Chengs are portrayed as ruthless financial engineers, not sentimental saviors. That transaction where the family office bought the dividend-paying subsidiary? That’s a masterclass in self-serving dealmaking. It shows where their priorities lie. The bondholders hoping for an equity injection or a family loan are probably dreaming. Hong Kong’s property tycoons became billionaires by being tough, especially with creditors when the tables turn. The line “they don’t throw good money after bad” says it all. Expect hardball, not charity.
Private Credit Goes Dark
This is the most counterintuitive take of the bunch. Everyone’s been talking about private credit as this monstrous, growing risk. But what if it just… fizzles? The argument makes sense. If banks are back in the game for big LBOs and data-center projects—and they are—then why pay higher rates to a private fund? The industry surveys already talk about an “asset shortage.” On top of that, the risk-reward seems broken. You don’t get the upside of equity, but you carry huge downside risk if one loan goes bad, as the First Brands case showed. So why bother indeed? If the easy money dries up and the deals get more competitive, this whole sector could deflate rather than explode. It’s a compelling, less-alarmist way to look at it.
