Looking at the S-1 lockup schedule the IPO seems doomed. They need to bring in a ton of investment, and you will have massive unlocks right as the next congress is most active authoring anti-AI bills. Who's going to buy this?
So many people who don't actually read and evaluate things but just buy stocks based on vibes and what they see on Twitter. Which is to say, the same people that buy and lose money on most IPOs.
I think it's crazy that Walmart is worth 1T. It's grocery chain operating in limited number of contries. Shouldn't be worth much more than for example, Carrefour.
can someone explain to me the point of the 'initial valuation', considering ultimately the price will settle lated thorugh trading to perceived value anyway ?
None of the value changes in later trading mean squat to how much actual money the company gets to put in their bank account.
They get the money from the initial purchase of the shares, and never get another dime directly from the market again, unless they have another offering (which is quite possible). The stock price does drive leverage for later M&A and debt/credit activities, and matters to stock-based compensation, so it does have meaning, but the IPO provides a one-time cash infusion at the initial price.
The point is that is the price the private investors who will be liquidating, including the company itself, are accepting for their shares.
If they are too far below the perceived value, they are leaving significant money on the table.
If they are too high, the institutions who participate in IPOs will let them know. If the price craters off IPO it is not good for perception of the stock, and so ongoing health of the company even if that maximizes private investor value at IPO.
So they build a book of commitment around the target value, trying to leave enough incentive (15-20%, often) of an initial bump to get big money in.
If the company is valued by the underwriter and initial buyers at $1 trillion and the company offers 10% for sale through their underwriters (who have put out feelers to try to attract buyers at highest price possible), they raise $100 billion from the offering, minus fees, to use as needed to further the business. The initial buyers get the shares at that valuation, and I believe if the underwriter positioned it wrongly they might be on the hook to sell some shares at a lower price without prejudice to the company.
If one of the initial buyers sells in the first minute the company is public the first publicly traded shares at 1.5x their purchase price, the company suddenly has a market cap of $1.5 trillion instead of $1 trillion, and that buyer has made a tidy 50% profit on the shares they just sold. If all initial buyers dump a bunch of their shares the price likely will go down, perhaps pushing the market cap to, say, $750 billion. Regardless of this action on the first day and after, the company offering their shares still has the $100 billion.
Note that initial buyers are discouraged from selling large portions of their shares.
Some people buy on "day 0", before it hits the stock exchange. This determines the price they pay on day 0. For example, if they buy 10% on day 0, they pay $130 billion.
The stock exchange is a "secondary market", which means you're buying stock from investors who own it, not from the company itself.
Typically in an IPO, the offering is about 20% of valuation of the company at the first offering. But with a $trillion or more, they will offer say 10% or less.. say $100B in one go is probably what the market can take.. Some banker has to back it up initially and defend that price... the next dump will be about same amount say $100B again but not the same number of shares. The underwriters are not obliged to back $1T and the IPOed company is not obliged to release more shares.
Ultimately the percentage of shares that public will trade is material. say 20% for $100B is quite different from 10% for $100B.
> can someone explain to me the point of the 'initial valuation'
Most of the institutional and retail placements happen on the initial valuation. These are the people who are holding the shares when it gets listed and starts trading, and it is the primary source of raising capital through an IPO.
To go further though the Initial Valuation (usually a range) is set weeks before the IPO to make it easier to pitch to investors. And the final valuation is locked in the night before trading based on actual demand.
The opening price on the stock exchange, though, will be whatever the demand and supply is in pre-market trading/open.
It's the starting listed price. For an anchor, it determines a lot about how the first few days go. It's also a great headline. It's also also what employees picture when they evaluate their stock options, I bet.
Whenever you buy a business, you have to have some idea of the valuation.
The IPOs need to have buyers. The buyers will have some idea of the business valuation, as will the sellers. This is decided before the actual stock starts trading.
Specifically, the "underwriters" will go around finding people willing to buy what is being offered. This gives some idea of where it will begin to trade.
> the numbers we're discussing here are the amount they'll raise from the IPO
No, the "valuation" numbers are the market cap at the moment of IPO. The amount raised is that multiplied by the percentage of shares issued by Anthropic (as opposed to by existing shareholders like investors and employees -- that combined number is the float) at the IPO.
Investors ‘subscribe’ to an IPO. A company offers a certain amount of shares for sale at a certain price. Then the underwriting banks go out and sell the shares.
If your broker allocates you shares, you pay the IPO price as does everyone else who was allocated shares. The shares are all allocated before the IPO happens and once it opens for trading, price discovery happens.
How the price is set is another matter, one I’m not familiar with as an amateur.
Please explain to me why my "naive and maybe ignorant" understanding of this is wrong... The bigger the IPO price, the more they earn and the more probability is for you to loose money invested in it.
So say Anthropic, or OpenAi, or smartGummyBearsAI go IPO and the price is insanely high... and then spirals down to be 10% of the real price... they earn a lot of money and the public loose a lot of money.
IF smartGummyBearsAI goes 100% realistic price and you buy near the correct price, they earn their fair money and people get an investment.
IF smartGummyBearsAI says that they have technology to use the same machine that makes gummy bears print gpus and they are priced 10,000x their actual price the society just transfers a lot of wealth to them and they scam the society.
Why shouldn't we regulate and aim for the correct price?
The price isn't "set" from what I understand. The price is determined based on what institutional investors are willing to sign up to pay for it. So it's largely driven by the market (not on the actual stock market, just the market of interested parties pre-IPO). Those institutional investors do not want the scenario you describe any more than you or I do.
That's why it's dropping here. When the actual stock market tanked yesterday institutional investors were like - hey wait a minute this is starting to look too expensive.
Also if your 401(k) is in index funds you are safe. A company is not added to indices right away. If you are in actively managed funds or something like that you might have more exposure risk.
Good drop. Should be less than a trillion amid current midterm fallout. The chances of more AI regulations are coming.
Colossus 1 & Colossus 2 are located on Tennessee and Mississippi, and Anthropic rents both of them earlier this year.
Now that Democrats are surely going after Trump and Elon Musk and the sidekicks, and both Tennessee and Mississippi turned blue as well, this directly impacts the way Anthropic to source cheap compute and data in the future due to uncertainty around the continuation of SpaceX data centers. And other data center buildouts are likely to be paused for things like power grid connection and environmental impacts and land purpose evaluation, the compute capacity constraints are likely going south, too.
Worse, the proposals around superintelligence is exactly what Anthropic is looking for: slow the fuck down. Now they got the killshot they long desired for, it obviously makes a dent in the capability and capacity of their AI, hence a drop in valuation. I think $800-900B is somewhere I would say okay, and $600-700B is really where it is fair, considering the long term outlook for Anthropic is looming with a greater AI massacre caused by political factors.
This is a "not like that" situation. They wanted "AI safety" legislation guaranteeing them rent money. What they're likely getting is legislation to slow down data center buildout and make them more environmentally sane (more expensive upfront cost).
And open models are coming whether they like it or not.
Oh, and if the Dems take OpenAI and Anthropic's AI safety rhetoric at face value, nationalization and other forms of substantial government interference is on the table. A predictable outcome of irresponsible fear mongering!
I wouldn’t be surprised if they pull the plug on the IPO and go hide under a privately funded rock.
The second one of these AI companies gets a fair valuation and folks start booking losses the whole AI house of cards will come
crumbling down. The crazy thing is if they drop below around 1T some existing investors will be booking losses.
A realistic valuation is likely in the hundreds of billions, which would be a total disaster and thus they’re going to do everything possible to avoid that.
literally what is the upside? They're supposedly worth as much as meta despite having nowhere near the customer base or years of work? How much more valuation do they have to trick people into giving them before investors get a return?
Anthropic hit 9 billion ARR in Dec 2025 and 80 billion in Oct 2026.
Meta hit 9 billion in 2014 and 80 billion in 2020. It is now at 250 billion.
At this growth rate Anthropic will be bigger than Meta already next year.
Caveats: It's hard to believe that this growth rate would continue. And Meta's numbers above are trailing 12 months, while Anthropic's are annualized run rate.
Since they actually have paying customers, it's a completely different sort of thing than for Meta. The question is instead whether they can keep at the frontier, whether the compute they've signed up for is good enough, etc.
Possibly speaks to its moat being weak, if a dedicated team from scratch can duplicate their efforts and get to where they are today in 2 years (but not where they will be).
Because building a stable revenue base takes time. We've had many flash-in-a-pan type product but things which still make money 10 years later are rare.
People seem unnecessarily deluded here in a supposed hacker forum. If they are really created actual digital intelligence smarter than every human and figure it out how to control it, then 1T dollars means this is the most undervalued business in the entire world. Maybe by 100x or 1000x. You have billions of super genius slaves in data centers that do whatever you want, then if a single human developer can earn $100k/year pessimisticly let alone a super genius one. Multiply that by a billion and do the math at 80% gross margins
…and what if they haven’t? Given that we haven’t seen evidence of one so far.
You’re also missing the competition aspect. What if other companies have their own super genius slaves to sell at a cheaper price? What if open models allow anyone to have their own moderately genius slave at far less expense?
I see nothing delusional in speculating that that’s a very big if.
And if they haven’t created an artificial superintelligence then they start to look more like just another tech startup with no moat[1] and a terrible balance sheet.
[1] I don’t know about you, but I switch model providers multiple times per day.
So many people who don't actually read and evaluate things but just buy stocks based on vibes and what they see on Twitter. Which is to say, the same people that buy and lose money on most IPOs.
And its kind of circular way of reasoning. As the investors would've actually watched the video and included it in their calculations.
Apple: 5 T
Google: 3.5 T
Meta: 1.55 T
Microsoft: 3.97 T
Berkshire Hathaway: 1.2 T
Eli Lilly: 1.28 T
Tesla: 1.38 T
Walmart: 1 T
Spotify: 125 billion
There are also many positive things about them. They are huge, and innovating. But their growth potential is somewhat limited
They get the money from the initial purchase of the shares, and never get another dime directly from the market again, unless they have another offering (which is quite possible). The stock price does drive leverage for later M&A and debt/credit activities, and matters to stock-based compensation, so it does have meaning, but the IPO provides a one-time cash infusion at the initial price.
If they are too far below the perceived value, they are leaving significant money on the table.
If they are too high, the institutions who participate in IPOs will let them know. If the price craters off IPO it is not good for perception of the stock, and so ongoing health of the company even if that maximizes private investor value at IPO.
So they build a book of commitment around the target value, trying to leave enough incentive (15-20%, often) of an initial bump to get big money in.
If one of the initial buyers sells in the first minute the company is public the first publicly traded shares at 1.5x their purchase price, the company suddenly has a market cap of $1.5 trillion instead of $1 trillion, and that buyer has made a tidy 50% profit on the shares they just sold. If all initial buyers dump a bunch of their shares the price likely will go down, perhaps pushing the market cap to, say, $750 billion. Regardless of this action on the first day and after, the company offering their shares still has the $100 billion.
Note that initial buyers are discouraged from selling large portions of their shares.
The stock exchange is a "secondary market", which means you're buying stock from investors who own it, not from the company itself.
Ultimately the percentage of shares that public will trade is material. say 20% for $100B is quite different from 10% for $100B.
Most of the institutional and retail placements happen on the initial valuation. These are the people who are holding the shares when it gets listed and starts trading, and it is the primary source of raising capital through an IPO.
To go further though the Initial Valuation (usually a range) is set weeks before the IPO to make it easier to pitch to investors. And the final valuation is locked in the night before trading based on actual demand.
The opening price on the stock exchange, though, will be whatever the demand and supply is in pre-market trading/open.
If the pop is too big, that means the company left money on the table.
If the pop is too small, the investment banks that underwrite the IPO have to worry about losing money.
The IPOs need to have buyers. The buyers will have some idea of the business valuation, as will the sellers. This is decided before the actual stock starts trading.
Specifically, the "underwriters" will go around finding people willing to buy what is being offered. This gives some idea of where it will begin to trade.
No, the "valuation" numbers are the market cap at the moment of IPO. The amount raised is that multiplied by the percentage of shares issued by Anthropic (as opposed to by existing shareholders like investors and employees -- that combined number is the float) at the IPO.
If your broker allocates you shares, you pay the IPO price as does everyone else who was allocated shares. The shares are all allocated before the IPO happens and once it opens for trading, price discovery happens.
How the price is set is another matter, one I’m not familiar with as an amateur.
So say Anthropic, or OpenAi, or smartGummyBearsAI go IPO and the price is insanely high... and then spirals down to be 10% of the real price... they earn a lot of money and the public loose a lot of money.
IF smartGummyBearsAI goes 100% realistic price and you buy near the correct price, they earn their fair money and people get an investment.
IF smartGummyBearsAI says that they have technology to use the same machine that makes gummy bears print gpus and they are priced 10,000x their actual price the society just transfers a lot of wealth to them and they scam the society.
Why shouldn't we regulate and aim for the correct price?
Remember 801k money is what we are talking about
That's why it's dropping here. When the actual stock market tanked yesterday institutional investors were like - hey wait a minute this is starting to look too expensive.
Also if your 401(k) is in index funds you are safe. A company is not added to indices right away. If you are in actively managed funds or something like that you might have more exposure risk.
Their numbers are shit. They are brittle af. Any shift in political climate results in internal mayhem.
Same with openai
Until there is a large free US model, its Ant and OAI.
Scaled from 0 to $65 billion in revenue in 5 years...
Colossus 1 & Colossus 2 are located on Tennessee and Mississippi, and Anthropic rents both of them earlier this year.
Now that Democrats are surely going after Trump and Elon Musk and the sidekicks, and both Tennessee and Mississippi turned blue as well, this directly impacts the way Anthropic to source cheap compute and data in the future due to uncertainty around the continuation of SpaceX data centers. And other data center buildouts are likely to be paused for things like power grid connection and environmental impacts and land purpose evaluation, the compute capacity constraints are likely going south, too.
Worse, the proposals around superintelligence is exactly what Anthropic is looking for: slow the fuck down. Now they got the killshot they long desired for, it obviously makes a dent in the capability and capacity of their AI, hence a drop in valuation. I think $800-900B is somewhere I would say okay, and $600-700B is really where it is fair, considering the long term outlook for Anthropic is looming with a greater AI massacre caused by political factors.
And open models are coming whether they like it or not.
The second one of these AI companies gets a fair valuation and folks start booking losses the whole AI house of cards will come crumbling down. The crazy thing is if they drop below around 1T some existing investors will be booking losses.
A realistic valuation is likely in the hundreds of billions, which would be a total disaster and thus they’re going to do everything possible to avoid that.
Caveats: It's hard to believe that this growth rate would continue. And Meta's numbers above are trailing 12 months, while Anthropic's are annualized run rate.
Since they actually have paying customers, it's a completely different sort of thing than for Meta. The question is instead whether they can keep at the frontier, whether the compute they've signed up for is good enough, etc.
You’re also missing the competition aspect. What if other companies have their own super genius slaves to sell at a cheaper price? What if open models allow anyone to have their own moderately genius slave at far less expense?
Whoever is claiming that is an idiot.
And if they haven’t created an artificial superintelligence then they start to look more like just another tech startup with no moat[1] and a terrible balance sheet.
[1] I don’t know about you, but I switch model providers multiple times per day.
Imagine that - 50 (fifty) times more than an average unicorn start-up!
Something they could be very proud of, and many if not all employees would become multi-hundred-thousandaires practically overnight!