All these things are apparently valued at trillions of dollars these days. Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life? What has gotten better other than the ability to produce more crap?
> Firms in the broad Russell 3000 share index have a total market value of $79trn
I sometimes try to get people to worry about the catastrophic state of American public finances by pointing out that the net national debt, including unfunded liabilities, is estimated to be $175T [0]. The government could appropriate all the equity from the top 3000 largest companies, and also the entire real estate market, and it still would not be able to pay its debt (RE market is $55T).
The $175T number is unfair because it treats Social Security and Medicare/aid as a liability instead of the service that they are. You might as well say the US is in infinite debt, because we'll always be paying something for our military every year, so infinity years * any dollars = infinite debt.
Also: All of those numbers you use to scare people are way, way off.
Government debt isn't like personal debt or business debt. The treasury can choose to not honur it, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Of course they're not going to find a market to sell more debt to after that, but wouldn't you say they already have enough?
No sympathy for people and institutions who make deals with the devil and expect the government to forever enslave taxpayers to honour those deals and pay back with interest.
The faster your cash loses value, the stronger your incentive to trade it for something else. That something else can be financial assets.
> It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments
For investors, particularly retail investors, the consumer price index is most relevant. But for whatever it's worth, producer prices are up over 16% in April (7% excluding "foods, energy, and trade services," which jumped over 50% annualized) [1].
To be clear, I'm floating a hypothesis here. I have seen no evidence linking inflation to demand for these companies' shares. (If anything, it should be the inverse.)
That depends. Inflation is a measure of the cost of living in terms of currency. It can be high either if goods and services required for living become scarce, or if currency supply increases. Currency supply increasing does affect asset prices.
Right now SPY not be such a great idea with SpaceX launch upcoming since it will be included into it immediately. Retail investors will be bearing that particular flop's cost.
I was old enough to remember the 08 crash. Then the market starting recovering in 2011/2012 and the sentiment was that the system would crash again soon like 08. Turns out, it was an amazing time to invest.
Post 08 crash, all sorts of conspiracy websites like Zero Hedge were popular saying how the world economy would keep crashing.
I am old enough to have had multiple career changes since starting on a major firm’s rates floor in 2008. These IPOs are tiny compared to the overall stock market and the stock market is absolutely tiny compared to debt markets. People consistently underestimate the size of the world economy or even their local economy. The world may look small from an orion capsule near the moon but almost every aspect of human society is bigger than most people can reason about. It is possible these IPOs have an outsized impact on sentiment for weird reasons. But it won’t be an actual outsized impact on capital markets.
Edit: I should add the AI bubble can absolutely burst but there is no reason to believe these IPOs are the end of the ride. If I knew I would be…
no one is going to get wealthy buying SPY/VOO. you might get rich, but not wealthy. things have changed now in a sense that handful of companies are large percentage of the stock market to the point where one has to question why invest in “s&p 500” vs “s&p 25-ish”
while going with the tried&true makes some sense, I think we have to open our eyes to a different reality of our stock market… and this market concentration into few companies is going to get a lot worse…
> things have changed now in a sense that handful of companies are large percentage of the stock market to the point where one has to question why invest in “s&p 500” vs “s&p 25-ish”
A small number of companies have always driven most stock-market gains. Betting on size isn't fundamentally a bad bet. But it is a bet against value and the historical tendency for small companies to be higher risk and higher reward.
I very much disagree that it's coming. I think we need to completely reset our expectations of how the market works. There's been nearly an entire generation working in this "new" bull market, where things like EPS mean absolutely nothing and speculation no longer requires actual returns.
> the crash (that we all know is coming) will do that. Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up
Stock prices don't have to crash. They can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.
Debt binges, on the other hand, tend to go bust with a bang. But after the recent private-credit scare, the AI build-out has been predominantly financed with stock. (I think.)
Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs? I follow this stuff somewhat closely and it feels intentionally confusing, so I've likely lost track.
> Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs?
I believe that's been concentrated at the hyperscaler layer, and subsided when the aforementioned private-credit scare reared its head. (I haven't heard a big datacenter debt deal announced in a while. Though of course that doesn't mean they aren't being done.)
> Equity bubbles don't have to crash. Prices can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.
Is there is historical evidence for that? As someone who used to follow Jeremy Grantham a lot (he considered himself a "bubble historian"), IIRC every bubble he studied always mean reverted, and it usually (maybe always, can't remember) overshot on the downside during the correction.
> IIRC every bubble he studied always mean reverted
This really depends on how we're defining these things. Let's call a stock-market bubble a period of elevated multiples. That can mean revert by prices decreasing while earnings stay constant or by prices staying constant and earnings rising. (Alternatively, both earnings and multiples can rise and fall.)
Yes, for equity prices in particular he talks about P/E ratios (among some other metrics like corporate profit margins), and so you're right, it would be possible for this to mean revert by prices holding stagnant and earnings catching up. However, as far as I can remember (primarily because a big emphasis of his was how unchecked bubbles can cause a lot of damage on the downside) all the historical bubbles he studied (something like 50) always crashed with a big price drop. Not 100% sure though, which is why I was curious if you had any contrary examples.
Net buying of corporate equities by American households, trusts, funds and non-profits has averaged $660bn per year for the last few years [1]. $200bn is not fundamentally a stretch for the American equity markets, let alone capital markets more broadly.
30% above the average. Households bought $1.6 trillion in Q3 of 2025, for example. (Foreigners bought a further $650 and $700 billion in Q3 and Q4, respectively.)
> A third of all spending is not fundamentally a stretch?
Where did you get spending? That's net buying of stocks by non-financial Americans. It's the new money that has, on average, gone into the U.S. stock market from that section of investors every year. A third of it going into these new issuances doesn't need to break anything.
Anthropic at $1t for an IPO vs Google at $23b in 2004 sounds insane but Google's revenue at the time was $2.7b while Anthropic's already at $47b, so a valuation at about 20x vs 10x revenue. Anthropic also has very high revenue growth (50x since 2024), it doesn't seems quite as insane as it could be.
So they're not just racing to gain dominance in AI, they're also racing to IPO before the music stops?
IPOing and getting a bunch of cash, even if your stock subsequently suffers in the crash, is a lot better than being unable to get that capital infusion before the house of cards collapses.
> Perhaps they’re afraid announcement would trigger divestment
S&P don't get a choice around whether they announce their methodology or not.
That said, the rule change at the NASDAQ 100 doesn't seem to have impacted pricing or allocation. I can't imagine that many people are that concerned about this. (I posted the public-comment request from S&P to HN [1]. The response was crickets.)
I don't think OpenAI or Anthropic are predicting that the AI market is going to collapse. In fact, I think both are bullish that the public still isn't pricing in exponential growth.
I think what is happening is that OpenAI is racing to IPO before Anthropic because their growth isn't as impressive. If you are the weaker company, you should IPO first to lock up the cash.
I can’t imagine them actually being bullish about exponential growth, when both seem instead to be stagnating. I’m more inclined to believe they’re just maintaining a level of hype in public because that’s what you do.
It's worse for the new investors. (If it crashes.) It's great for the old investors. They got an opportunity to sell if they wanted. If they didn't, they still own their shares, except in a company that has that IPO cash sitting in its account.
People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. When was the last time since 2009 there was a $500+ billion tech valuation that lost 90% or more? After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples.
The old saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future.
> After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples.
Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory.
> people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't
History is also replete with people constantly predicting collapses that don't come. Timing the market is very hard with numbers, it's total nonsense if one is just going off vibes.
Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI are not banks. (Also, we had the largest bank runs in American history three years ago. The ordinary American barely noticed.)
If note the dotcom boom lasted from about 1995 until 2000. Housing bubble longer. Theres no time table on when the bubble bursts, and the web didn’t die and neither did housing when the burst happened. It is just a reset and consolidation of overtly excessive speculation. It’s not like the bust leads to an end of civilization.
No doubt these companies are woefully overvalued. But this won’t stop me from putting in orders for several thousand dollars of shares with at market open. There will undoubtedly be plenty of buyers and I expect them to gain rapid entry into the indexes which will unlock a flood of additional capital from 401ks and pensions
Can the stock market remain legitimate after such a brazen example of dumping? Regular everyday people can’t access private shares and participate in upside even if they want to. They don’t have the connections like VCs, and aren’t accredited investors. And companies ban secondary transactions, which should be forced by law to be always allowed.
And then after all that, the public have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up these overpriced stocks. You have a space company that also acquired a failing social media platform and failing AI company with little revenue justification for the valuation, and a lot of other obligations that make it financially a disaster (like payments owed for spectrum). And two frontier labs with no real moats, each looking for regulatory capture based on safety or ethics or whatever.
To the everyday person, the stock market after the fast listing rule, these three IPOs, and AI job loss, will feel no more legitimate than prediction markets or crypto.
> then they have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up overpriced stocks
Only about a third of American stocks are held by passive capital [1]. Out of that, index funds are about 16%, and most of those in America reference the S&P 500, which has not yet announced whether it is changing its rules.
Why wouldn't it? There huge demand for these shares. It's not like $3+ trillion is dumped at once. It's a tiny percentage of it, and the high multiple does the rest of the work.
So what people seem to be unaware of or are purposely ignoring is that OpenAI and Anthropic have invested trillions in a rapdily depreciating asset. There was a HN post from a day or two ago where someone bought a V100 for 150 pounds and connected it to their computer. Well that was a $10k GPU in 2017. That's the fate of H100/B100 GPUs in 5-10 years (and I suspect closer to 5). What do you do if you've invested $1 trillion that will be worth $100 billion or less in 5 years? I think it'll be worse than that because modern hardware at that time will still probably be the same Wattage but have much higher performance so you'll be getting much higher performance-per-Watt and that's going to really matter.
The only company I'm confident will survive this hardware crunch and still be relatively successful in this space is Google.
OpenAI in particular is a bet that there will be an AI moat and that OpenAI will "win". I don't think there will be a moat and China is a big reason why (eg DeepSeek).
SpaceX is a little different. Yes, launching rockets is a business but it's not a trillion dollar business. 100 Falcon 9 launches doesn't even break $10 billion in revenue. Plus, Starship faces cost overruns, delays and significant headwinds.
But the real kicker is that SpaceX was used to bail out Elon from the Twitter purchase and the xAI investors from the first Twitter bailout. That's a problem because xAI is burning $1 billion a month in a company where that really matters and I don't think Grok will "win" here. Like, at all. SpaceX would be a significantly more attractive company without xAI.
The big potential growth area is Starlink. For that to justify this valuation I think you need handheld Starlink phones. That requires a lot of satellites at a relatively low orbit, which also means they have a relatively short life (because they burn up in the atmosphere). And for that Starship must succeed.
All the AI data center in space stuff is complete bullshit. It makes no sense. It'll never be viable. It's not going to happen.
EDIT: let me clarify because I was careless in my wording. So, Anthropic individually has not spent "trillions". That was more of a general statement on AI spending. Anthropic has raised ~$100B, the last round of which was $65B (at $965B post-money IIRC). This industry as a whole needs to recoup trillions.
Anthropic seems to be in a better position (as a business) than OpeNAI is but I do think the it's a race to cash out before depreciating assets, well, drepreciate and there's the real risk as compute becomes cheaper and the AI craze wears off, Claude just may not have the growth trajectory that is built into the price.
Starlink Mobile (i.e. Starlink direct-to-cellphone without modifications) is already happening, and fast. Phones that have the recently announced Qualcomm X105 modem will support Starlink Mobile 5G at speeds up to 150Mbps, direct from satellite. The Qualcomm X105 modem will be in most Android flagship phones coming later this year, and by 2027 most new phones will support Starlink direct-to-cell. The next iPhone that supports the 3GPP Rel-19 standard will too.
The rollout relies on Starlink V3 sats, which can only be launched Starship, but Starship progress is going well and is already able to deploy satellites from orbit. SpaceX is capable of launching Starlink V3 on the current iteration of Starship, but they want more testing. We'll probably see Starlink V3 launching late this year or early next year.
"OpenAI and Anthropic have invested trillions in a rapdily depreciating asset".
Anthropic raised a bit over 100B and has 47B ARR. Where are you getting trillions from ?
All these things are apparently valued at trillions of dollars these days. Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life? What has gotten better other than the ability to produce more crap?
> Firms in the broad Russell 3000 share index have a total market value of $79trn
I sometimes try to get people to worry about the catastrophic state of American public finances by pointing out that the net national debt, including unfunded liabilities, is estimated to be $175T [0]. The government could appropriate all the equity from the top 3000 largest companies, and also the entire real estate market, and it still would not be able to pay its debt (RE market is $55T).
[0] https://balajis.com/p/americas-175-trillion-problem
The $175T number is unfair because it treats Social Security and Medicare/aid as a liability instead of the service that they are. You might as well say the US is in infinite debt, because we'll always be paying something for our military every year, so infinity years * any dollars = infinite debt.
Also: All of those numbers you use to scare people are way, way off.
> it treats Social Security and Medicare/aid as a liability instead of the service that they are
It's a liability because the U.S. has promised to pay it. We haven't committed to a level of military spending backed by our full faith and credit.
The thing is that at these levels of debt, repayment is never the goal.
Well, will be interesting to see how this play out. The US federal debt repayments is already above $1trillion a year.
How can you use a word like “never” when this debt is literally unprecedented in the history of the world
It can never be repaid. Presumably the people in charge of generating it are not oblivious to this fact.
"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem."
...what does this have to do with these IPOs?
Government debt isn't like personal debt or business debt. The treasury can choose to not honur it, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Of course they're not going to find a market to sell more debt to after that, but wouldn't you say they already have enough?
No sympathy for people and institutions who make deals with the devil and expect the government to forever enslave taxpayers to honour those deals and pay back with interest.
> Of course they're not going to find a market to sell more debt to after that
Argentina is doing fine. The real constraint would be that defaulting on the debt would cause a credit crisis and bank collapses.
Pretty sure this is why the bankruptcy guy from NY was sent in
The way I've been thinking about it: there is too much money trying to pour into the market. That's why valuations are so high.
Maybe getting more of these big private companies public will bring valuations down a bit.
(Just my impression. No math or financial studies behind it :)
> there is too much money trying to pour into the market
Keep in mind that inflation ran over 7% annualized in April [1].
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Inflation is a measure of the cost of living. It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments.
> Inflation is a measure of the cost of living
The faster your cash loses value, the stronger your incentive to trade it for something else. That something else can be financial assets.
> It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments
For investors, particularly retail investors, the consumer price index is most relevant. But for whatever it's worth, producer prices are up over 16% in April (7% excluding "foods, energy, and trade services," which jumped over 50% annualized) [1].
To be clear, I'm floating a hypothesis here. I have seen no evidence linking inflation to demand for these companies' shares. (If anything, it should be the inverse.)
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm
That depends. Inflation is a measure of the cost of living in terms of currency. It can be high either if goods and services required for living become scarce, or if currency supply increases. Currency supply increasing does affect asset prices.
Inflation then is already higher. Cost of living is driven mostly by rent
No, the crash (that we all know is coming) will do that. Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up
This is one of those "everyone who dies, breaths air" statements.
It's frustrating people who parrot it think they're smart by saying it to others with no basis and finally when it does happen they're like SEE SEE!?
> Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up
And this is the more important part. As long as you're <40 you SHOULD always buy SPY or VOO, even at the very top.
People have been saying the crash has been coming since 2022. If you believed this and acted on it, you would've missed 3-4 +10%/yr returns.
As Buffet says: You can't time the market; be in it.
It doesn’t seem Berkshire is that much in the market right now.
Just to add some color using real numbers: Berkshire's Q1 cash pile was $397.4 billion, which is nearly 60% of its investable assets.
Right now SPY not be such a great idea with SpaceX launch upcoming since it will be included into it immediately. Retail investors will be bearing that particular flop's cost.
> SPY not be such a great idea with SpaceX launch upcoming since it will be included into it immediately
S&P has not announced a methodology change yet.
They haven't approved a change, but they have released proposals, which are tentatively to go into effect on June 8:
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...
I was old enough to remember the 08 crash. Then the market starting recovering in 2011/2012 and the sentiment was that the system would crash again soon like 08. Turns out, it was an amazing time to invest.
Post 08 crash, all sorts of conspiracy websites like Zero Hedge were popular saying how the world economy would keep crashing.
I am old enough to have had multiple career changes since starting on a major firm’s rates floor in 2008. These IPOs are tiny compared to the overall stock market and the stock market is absolutely tiny compared to debt markets. People consistently underestimate the size of the world economy or even their local economy. The world may look small from an orion capsule near the moon but almost every aspect of human society is bigger than most people can reason about. It is possible these IPOs have an outsized impact on sentiment for weird reasons. But it won’t be an actual outsized impact on capital markets.
Edit: I should add the AI bubble can absolutely burst but there is no reason to believe these IPOs are the end of the ride. If I knew I would be…
no one is going to get wealthy buying SPY/VOO. you might get rich, but not wealthy. things have changed now in a sense that handful of companies are large percentage of the stock market to the point where one has to question why invest in “s&p 500” vs “s&p 25-ish”
while going with the tried&true makes some sense, I think we have to open our eyes to a different reality of our stock market… and this market concentration into few companies is going to get a lot worse…
> things have changed now in a sense that handful of companies are large percentage of the stock market to the point where one has to question why invest in “s&p 500” vs “s&p 25-ish”
A small number of companies have always driven most stock-market gains. Betting on size isn't fundamentally a bad bet. But it is a bet against value and the historical tendency for small companies to be higher risk and higher reward.
One of my favorite phrases is “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
Even if all signs point to impending doom, at the end of the day if people are still buying, stocks will hold their value.
I very much disagree that it's coming. I think we need to completely reset our expectations of how the market works. There's been nearly an entire generation working in this "new" bull market, where things like EPS mean absolutely nothing and speculation no longer requires actual returns.
> There's been nearly an entire generation working in this "new" bull market
You mean 0DTE babies?
> the crash (that we all know is coming) will do that. Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up
Stock prices don't have to crash. They can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.
Debt binges, on the other hand, tend to go bust with a bang. But after the recent private-credit scare, the AI build-out has been predominantly financed with stock. (I think.)
Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs? I follow this stuff somewhat closely and it feels intentionally confusing, so I've likely lost track.
> Hasn't there been a _lot_ of debt to buy up Nvidia GPUs?
I believe that's been concentrated at the hyperscaler layer, and subsided when the aforementioned private-credit scare reared its head. (I haven't heard a big datacenter debt deal announced in a while. Though of course that doesn't mean they aren't being done.)
And we're still extremely compute constrained. We need more Nvidia GPUs, RAM, power.
> Equity bubbles don't have to crash. Prices can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.
Is there is historical evidence for that? As someone who used to follow Jeremy Grantham a lot (he considered himself a "bubble historian"), IIRC every bubble he studied always mean reverted, and it usually (maybe always, can't remember) overshot on the downside during the correction.
> IIRC every bubble he studied always mean reverted
This really depends on how we're defining these things. Let's call a stock-market bubble a period of elevated multiples. That can mean revert by prices decreasing while earnings stay constant or by prices staying constant and earnings rising. (Alternatively, both earnings and multiples can rise and fall.)
Yes, for equity prices in particular he talks about P/E ratios (among some other metrics like corporate profit margins), and so you're right, it would be possible for this to mean revert by prices holding stagnant and earnings catching up. However, as far as I can remember (primarily because a big emphasis of his was how unchecked bubbles can cause a lot of damage on the downside) all the historical bubbles he studied (something like 50) always crashed with a big price drop. Not 100% sure though, which is why I was curious if you had any contrary examples.
There is nowhere else for that money to go
Net buying of corporate equities by American households, trusts, funds and non-profits has averaged $660bn per year for the last few years [1]. $200bn is not fundamentally a stretch for the American equity markets, let alone capital markets more broadly.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22... line 16, 2023 to 2025
A 30% increase in one year, across only 3 companies, seems like a of a stretch. Especially given current economic/etc climates.
> 30% increase in one year
30% above the average. Households bought $1.6 trillion in Q3 of 2025, for example. (Foreigners bought a further $650 and $700 billion in Q3 and Q4, respectively.)
American capital markets are ridiculously deep.
A third of all spending is not fundamentally a stretch?
> A third of all spending is not fundamentally a stretch?
Where did you get spending? That's net buying of stocks by non-financial Americans. It's the new money that has, on average, gone into the U.S. stock market from that section of investors every year. A third of it going into these new issuances doesn't need to break anything.
Anthropic at $1t for an IPO vs Google at $23b in 2004 sounds insane but Google's revenue at the time was $2.7b while Anthropic's already at $47b, so a valuation at about 20x vs 10x revenue. Anthropic also has very high revenue growth (50x since 2024), it doesn't seems quite as insane as it could be.
That is revenue. What is the net profit?
So they're not just racing to gain dominance in AI, they're also racing to IPO before the music stops?
IPOing and getting a bunch of cash, even if your stock subsequently suffers in the crash, is a lot better than being unable to get that capital infusion before the house of cards collapses.
The only reason I can think of for the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX is a pump and dump
> the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX
To be clear, S&P hasn't announced a decision on this yet.
Perhaps they’re afraid announcement would trigger divestment
> Perhaps they’re afraid announcement would trigger divestment
S&P don't get a choice around whether they announce their methodology or not.
That said, the rule change at the NASDAQ 100 doesn't seem to have impacted pricing or allocation. I can't imagine that many people are that concerned about this. (I posted the public-comment request from S&P to HN [1]. The response was crickets.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324
I don't think OpenAI or Anthropic are predicting that the AI market is going to collapse. In fact, I think both are bullish that the public still isn't pricing in exponential growth.
I think what is happening is that OpenAI is racing to IPO before Anthropic because their growth isn't as impressive. If you are the weaker company, you should IPO first to lock up the cash.
I can’t imagine them actually being bullish about exponential growth, when both seem instead to be stagnating. I’m more inclined to believe they’re just maintaining a level of hype in public because that’s what you do.
> when both seem instead to be stagnating
What's the evidence for Anthropic stagnating?
The same evidence that they are growing. Tea leaves.
What are they offering the public (not me and you writing code in our free time)?
They are offering the public an opportunity to become shareholders and they are giving their investors and employees liquidity.
I mean as a long-term product, not as a offer to join a hype cycle.
Automating a large portion of existing white collar work, accelerating scientific discoveries, brain for robotics, etc. These are compelling offers.
Sure, how does that benefit the public?
I don't know. Some will benefit, some will not. The topic here is the IPOs.
What have the Romans ever do for us?!
Better for whom?
The company. Worse for the investors. It's a classic bagholder play, but it can give the companies a comfortable runway post IPO.
Typically, you IPO when your private funding is drying up and/or some of your early lenders want to cash out.
> The company. Worse for the investors
It's worse for the new investors. (If it crashes.) It's great for the old investors. They got an opportunity to sell if they wanted. If they didn't, they still own their shares, except in a company that has that IPO cash sitting in its account.
Yes, correct. Although, even for some company folks, if it crashes, they get burned since they typically have blackouts post IPO.
Of course, some special souls are excluded from blackouts lol.
> if it crashes, they get burned since they typically have blackouts post IPO
In the alternate timeline they would have held shares in a private company. They're still not really getting burned other than getting a tax bill.
People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. When was the last time since 2009 there was a $500+ billion tech valuation that lost 90% or more? After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples.
The old saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future.
> After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples.
Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory.
Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't.
This is one of those arguments that is so vacuous you can apply it to anything and always be right.
> "There's no way you'll hurt yourself walking to the living room"
> "Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't."
> people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't
History is also replete with people constantly predicting collapses that don't come. Timing the market is very hard with numbers, it's total nonsense if one is just going off vibes.
Most bank runs tend to be driven by vibes, not numbers though.
The good news is that these folks seem to be in possession of a vibe-rator.
> bank runs
Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI are not banks. (Also, we had the largest bank runs in American history three years ago. The ordinary American barely noticed.)
They're not profitable either, so the money has to come from somewhere, no?
> the money has to come from somewhere, no?
Yes. Equity investors.
Nasdaq is 5.4x higher now than peak dotcom.
So just buy the dip if it actually crashes.
If note the dotcom boom lasted from about 1995 until 2000. Housing bubble longer. Theres no time table on when the bubble bursts, and the web didn’t die and neither did housing when the burst happened. It is just a reset and consolidation of overtly excessive speculation. It’s not like the bust leads to an end of civilization.
No doubt these companies are woefully overvalued. But this won’t stop me from putting in orders for several thousand dollars of shares with at market open. There will undoubtedly be plenty of buyers and I expect them to gain rapid entry into the indexes which will unlock a flood of additional capital from 401ks and pensions
Flagged from the front page for defeatism. Like in the Soviet Union.
Every time an article is AI critical or attracts too many AI skeptical comments, it is flagged. Is this process automated with openclaw by now?
Can the stock market remain legitimate after such a brazen example of dumping? Regular everyday people can’t access private shares and participate in upside even if they want to. They don’t have the connections like VCs, and aren’t accredited investors. And companies ban secondary transactions, which should be forced by law to be always allowed.
And then after all that, the public have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up these overpriced stocks. You have a space company that also acquired a failing social media platform and failing AI company with little revenue justification for the valuation, and a lot of other obligations that make it financially a disaster (like payments owed for spectrum). And two frontier labs with no real moats, each looking for regulatory capture based on safety or ethics or whatever.
To the everyday person, the stock market after the fast listing rule, these three IPOs, and AI job loss, will feel no more legitimate than prediction markets or crypto.
> then they have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up overpriced stocks
Only about a third of American stocks are held by passive capital [1]. Out of that, index funds are about 16%, and most of those in America reference the S&P 500, which has not yet announced whether it is changing its rules.
[1] https://alexchinco.com/double-what-you-think-it-is.pdf
What a headline
Why wouldn't it? There huge demand for these shares. It's not like $3+ trillion is dumped at once. It's a tiny percentage of it, and the high multiple does the rest of the work.
There was a huge demand for the World Online IPO in The Netherlands in the late 2000 bubble. Retail investors bought it thinking they got a unicorn.
Turns out it was a scam and shares fell on the first day. Soon after the entire bubble burst.
That said, I don't even see "huge demand" for the AI triocorns right now. Unlike in 2000, most people are skeptical.
Meanwhile, Anthropic is adding ~$10-$15b ARR every month.
I personally think there is massive demand. I think Anthropic will easily eclipse $2 trillion marketcap on first day of trading.So, The Economist's paywall is unbypassable?
Download the Bypass Paywalls Clean browser extension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_Paywalls_Clean
The project has been going on for years, it moved to gitflic after being banned from github and gitlab.
Amazing! Thank you!
So what people seem to be unaware of or are purposely ignoring is that OpenAI and Anthropic have invested trillions in a rapdily depreciating asset. There was a HN post from a day or two ago where someone bought a V100 for 150 pounds and connected it to their computer. Well that was a $10k GPU in 2017. That's the fate of H100/B100 GPUs in 5-10 years (and I suspect closer to 5). What do you do if you've invested $1 trillion that will be worth $100 billion or less in 5 years? I think it'll be worse than that because modern hardware at that time will still probably be the same Wattage but have much higher performance so you'll be getting much higher performance-per-Watt and that's going to really matter.
The only company I'm confident will survive this hardware crunch and still be relatively successful in this space is Google.
OpenAI in particular is a bet that there will be an AI moat and that OpenAI will "win". I don't think there will be a moat and China is a big reason why (eg DeepSeek).
SpaceX is a little different. Yes, launching rockets is a business but it's not a trillion dollar business. 100 Falcon 9 launches doesn't even break $10 billion in revenue. Plus, Starship faces cost overruns, delays and significant headwinds.
But the real kicker is that SpaceX was used to bail out Elon from the Twitter purchase and the xAI investors from the first Twitter bailout. That's a problem because xAI is burning $1 billion a month in a company where that really matters and I don't think Grok will "win" here. Like, at all. SpaceX would be a significantly more attractive company without xAI.
The big potential growth area is Starlink. For that to justify this valuation I think you need handheld Starlink phones. That requires a lot of satellites at a relatively low orbit, which also means they have a relatively short life (because they burn up in the atmosphere). And for that Starship must succeed.
All the AI data center in space stuff is complete bullshit. It makes no sense. It'll never be viable. It's not going to happen.
EDIT: let me clarify because I was careless in my wording. So, Anthropic individually has not spent "trillions". That was more of a general statement on AI spending. Anthropic has raised ~$100B, the last round of which was $65B (at $965B post-money IIRC). This industry as a whole needs to recoup trillions.
Anthropic seems to be in a better position (as a business) than OpeNAI is but I do think the it's a race to cash out before depreciating assets, well, drepreciate and there's the real risk as compute becomes cheaper and the AI craze wears off, Claude just may not have the growth trajectory that is built into the price.
Starlink Mobile (i.e. Starlink direct-to-cellphone without modifications) is already happening, and fast. Phones that have the recently announced Qualcomm X105 modem will support Starlink Mobile 5G at speeds up to 150Mbps, direct from satellite. The Qualcomm X105 modem will be in most Android flagship phones coming later this year, and by 2027 most new phones will support Starlink direct-to-cell. The next iPhone that supports the 3GPP Rel-19 standard will too.
The rollout relies on Starlink V3 sats, which can only be launched Starship, but Starship progress is going well and is already able to deploy satellites from orbit. SpaceX is capable of launching Starlink V3 on the current iteration of Starship, but they want more testing. We'll probably see Starlink V3 launching late this year or early next year.
> What do you do if you've invested $1 trillion that will be worth $100 billion or less in 5 years?
I think the aim would be to generate at least $900bn of cash flow from those assets.
"OpenAI and Anthropic have invested trillions in a rapdily depreciating asset". Anthropic raised a bit over 100B and has 47B ARR. Where are you getting trillions from ?
Source on the trillions invested?