In summary, AT&T borrows from suppliers of handsets, capital assets, and other ‘productive’ assets. AT&T’s handset suppliers were owed USD5.1bn at March 31 under an arrangement where the suppliers are paid interest if AT&T chooses to give themselves additional time to pay. This allows AT&T the option to take up to 90 additional days to pay handset suppliers. The capital and productive assets bought under the ‘vendor financing’ category are acquired through deals where the supplier has given AT&T an extended period to pay (120 days or more) in exchange for a higher gross amount paid. The difference between what AT&T pays under these vendor financing arrangements and the amount they would have otherwise paid is effectively the same as the interest on borrowing the amount owed.
There is nothing technically wrong or immoral in what AT&T is doing. It is interesting because AT&T is getting a significant portion of its finance by making arrangements with vendors that do not involve banks. USD10bn of borrowing is coming from these rolling arrangements with vendors, compared to USD124bn of long-term debt. The cost to AT&T of these vendor financing arrangements has exceeded USD4bn in both 2021 and 2022. To put this into perspective, Verizon only reported USD320mn of vendor financing payments in 2021, and none in 2022 because the total was not deemed large enough to be material to the accounts.