Yes.
There were mainly backed by British holdings and investment in the USA, which was enormous (~US$4.2 billion with another US$400M from France, and US$640M from the Netherlands).
If you want a pro-CP, or anti-Entente, USA try no McAdoo in 1914.
In 1914 the U.S. economy was still immature and the nation a global debtor with a currency that no-one wanted and that was subject to recurring panics. After the Great War started Europeans, who supplied much of the capital to the United States, were cashing in their US stocks and bonds and dollars for gold, and taking the metal home. That was terrible news for US securities, for the US dollar, and for US bank who couldn't redeem paper for metal. This was stopped by William Gibbs McAdoo, who took decisive, if dubiously legal, actions to stop this; including closing the NY stock market for four months and flooding the economy with currency via the Aldrich-Vreeland Act
McAdoo was US Treasury Secretary, and Wilson's son-in-law.
Without McAdoo's actions it's likely that the US economy would have been severely damaged by the British and French liquidation of their US securities in 1914. There'd also probably have been no bailout of the bankrupt city of New York (which owed vast sums to the Entente powers), no Bureau of War Risk Insurance et cetera.
This is one factor I rely upon to derail American participation. 1914 began as a recessionary year, let the Entente liquidate and the markets collapse not simply undermines ability but also enthusiasm. A recovery might take the whole war even with exports of arms, combined with British imposed restraints upon American freedom of the seas, being "responsible" for destroying the economy might destroy Anglo-American friendship. I do not see this going pro-German but it is way better than anti-German.