Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/can-the-stockmarket-swallow-anthropic-spacex-and-openai

by 1vuio0pswjnm7 • 2 months ago

724 1218 2 months ago

rconti3• 2 months ago

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.

Avicebron8• 2 months ago

Better for whom?

SecretDreams2• 2 months ago

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.

bickfordb• 2 months ago

The only reason I can think of for the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX is a pump and dump

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX

To be clear, S&P hasn't announced a decision on this yet.

paulpauper2• 2 months ago

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.

hungryhobbit2• 2 months ago

Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't.

bunderbunder3• 2 months ago

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.

fnordpiglet• 2 months ago

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.

lmm• 2 months ago

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.

_fizz_buzz_• 2 months ago

In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did.

AlexCoventry4• 2 months ago

The headwinds are way worse now, though. Oil is choked, war is brewing, and corruption is at an all-time high.

lelanthran• 2 months ago

People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023.

The bubble can't pop until after an IPO, and that doesn't mean "immediately after".

You can't have a run on a privately held company.

Npovview3• 2 months ago

US markets will keep superpositiong S-curves upon S-curves upon S-curves. Just as Elon Musk does with his companies. Just ask Tesla/SpaceX bulls.

materiallie• 2 months ago

Why did you reference "since 2009" like it was an eternity ago, when it's actually the most recent business cycle?

aurareturn11• 2 months ago

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.

Avicebron8• 2 months ago

What are they offering the public (not me and you writing code in our free time)?

bunderbunder3• 2 months ago

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.

sinuhe69• 2 months ago

The AI market might not collapse but the stock market could! Even if the AI companies only need to downgrade their investments and a healthy correction is underway, a fire sale of AI-related stocks will bring the stock market to its knees.

crthpl3• 2 months ago

where the heck are you seeing OpenAI racing to IPO before anthropic?

dangus2• 2 months ago

I'm not sure how long we can continue being negative about these AI companies. This idea that there will be a crash has often burned the bears in a way that has become an Internet meme.

In reality, corporations as a whole are seeing record profits continuing through 2026. Whether or not the average person is doing well is pretty irrelevant to the stock market: if companies are increasingly profitable, stocks go up.

Everything I hear about Anthropic points to a company that is actually closer to profitability and possibly already profitable, unlike many of its other peers.

We don't really look at YouTube as a failure and that product was unprofitable for many years. Nobody thinks the Uber bubble is going to burst even though it has never made back its investment money.

I think OpenAI is undisciplined and poorly run hence the insane burning of cash. Sam Altman is a terrible CEO and a conman. Anthropic is run by legit people.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta face essentially no negative consequence for burning cash. They have no urgent need to be efficient about their AI investments, even if they could be.

SpaceX is of course not profitable and has a lot of baggage but they still have a major asset, which is that Starlink prints utility company levels of money and is expanding both customer base and profit margins rapidly. Are they overvalued? Yeah, of course.

Johnny_Bonk• 2 months ago

What a headline

hootz2• 2 months ago

So, The Economist's paywall is unbypassable?

tristanj12• 2 months ago

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.

hootz2• 2 months ago

Amazing! Thank you!

paulpauper2• 2 months ago

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.

asjgGa6• 2 months ago

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.

aurareturn11• 2 months ago

  World Online IPO

€64 million revenue on €91 million losses.

Meanwhile, Anthropic is adding ~$10-$15b ARR every month.

  That said, I don't even see "huge demand" for the AI triocorns right now. Unlike in 2000, most people are skeptical.

I personally think there is massive demand. I think Anthropic will easily eclipse $2 trillion marketcap on first day of trading.

timmg• 2 months ago

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 :)

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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

philipallstar8• 2 months ago

Inflation is a measure of the cost of living. It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments.

Alive-in-2025• 2 months ago

From that doc, prices went up 0.6% in one month, multiple by 12 get 7.2% annual inflation rate.

Auracle• 2 months ago

The vast majority of that was fuel.

hungryhobbit2• 2 months ago

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

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.)

irjustin• 2 months ago

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.

TechSquidTV2• 2 months ago

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.

1270018080• 2 months ago

There is nowhere else for that money to go

podunkPDX• 2 months ago

I'd say your sense is not wrong: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

dangus2• 2 months ago

Corporations across the board are experiencing record profitability. That's the reason behind the high valuations.

This isn't true of AI companies...yet. But these are companies entering the market with pre-IPO userbase (including lots of B2B) numbers that Meta and YouTube would have dreamed of before their acquisition/IPO.

I think this whole situation is very sleazy and corrupt, but ultimately my prediction is that nothing serious will come of it. Even the exposure of index and passive investing is overstated.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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

idiotsecant• 2 months ago

A third of all spending is not fundamentally a stretch?

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.

soared• 2 months ago

A 30% increase in one year, across only 3 companies, seems like a of a stretch. Especially given current economic/etc climates.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.

jmyeet3• 2 months ago

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.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.

qaq3• 2 months ago

"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 ?

aurareturn11• 2 months ago

Source on the trillions invested?

tristanj12• 2 months ago

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.

paulbgd• 2 months ago

As I was reading the start of your argument, I thought you were gonna call the models a depreciating asset! Totally agree about GPUs too, but literally everything they’re spending money on has to be rebuilt to stay competitive. They have to go for the moonshot of training a full new model when better tech comes, they have to upgrade GPUs to keep their data centers efficient.

jmyeet3• 2 months ago

Technically, the model is a depreciating asset too. Just consider the difference between a model you need a B200 cluster to run vs one you can run on a Raspberry Pi. One's going to have a moat around it that gives it value and the other isn't. It's a hyperbolic argument to be sure but the nature of "enthusiast" hardware is that we're currently running, say, ~27B parameter models on hardware for a few thousand. What's that going to look like in 2 years?

Anthropic/OpenAI really need to train ever-bigger models to keep their moat. But that assumes there isn't a law of diminishing returns and also that a compressed model isn't sufficient for what many people need.

You mihgt say that the training is a barrier. And it is, kind of. Notice how it's Chinese companies coming out with open-source models like DeepSeek and Qwen? That's no accident. As soon as DeepSeek came out I knew what was going on: China is going to make sure no single Western company "owns" AI. It's in their national interest for that not to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rush-to-IPO is motivated, at least in part, by getting ahead of Chinese AI commoditization.

gen220• 2 months ago

How many failed foundation model training run cycles do you think these companies can tank before the bubble pops and deepseek/etc. catch up to frontier quality?

If Ant, OAI, etc. aren't able to make 20-30% improvements on Opus 4.6 in 2026, does the music stop playing altogether? It seems like they'd lose their ability to charge >10% gross margin on inference in a span of 3-6 months.

redox992• 2 months ago

Now that Moores law is dead I think GPUs will depreciate a lot slower. I mean there's already a lot of hardware that has gotten more expensive in the last 5 years.

flumpcakes2• 2 months ago

I mean there's already a lot of hardware that has gotten more expensive in the last 5 years.

The vast majority of the price rise is mainly due to AI companies sucking all the air out of the room and everyone investing in "AI" regardless.

If China gets their process down to match US/Korea/Taiwan and they decide to flood the market to drown out competitors then hardware is going to be an order of magnitude (or two) cheaper than it is today.

SilverElfin3• 2 months ago

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.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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

vmbm2• 2 months ago

Sure, but it's the Americans that can least afford to be stood up as exit liquidity that have the most exposure here relative to their net worth. The ultra wealthy are going to be heavily overrepresented in the active basket. Meanwhile the folks lower down on the income scale are more likely to have their money in passive funds.

fsuts6• 2 months ago

A third is a lot 16% is a lot

AtNightWeCode• 2 months ago

I think it is incorrect to place these corps in the same bucket. The scam here is SPCX. The only reason they are allowed to do this bs is because Nasdaq are greedy and wants this ticker on their stock exchange. The evaluation of SPCX is based on the AI leg. Not rockets, not starlink, AI.

SomaticPirate• 2 months ago

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

dTal• 2 months ago

Why? You think an obvious scam is easy money for you? You think you're smarter than the next retail investor? Why?

Don't give your money to Elon Musk, he doesn't need more.

paulryanrogers• 2 months ago

So timing the market?

d_burfoot2• 2 months ago

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

ElProlactin4• 2 months ago

The thing is that at these levels of debt, repayment is never the goal.

LPisGood• 2 months ago

How can you use a word like “never” when this debt is literally unprecedented in the history of the world

testrun2• 2 months ago

Well, will be interesting to see how this play out. The US federal debt repayments is already above $1trillion a year.

827a2• 2 months ago

Repayment isn't a goal that anyone in the system should reasonably want. Federal debt is not like credit card debt. Debt is a product that the US Government sells. Me, being a big corporation or human, go to the USG and say "I need somewhere to park my money that is safeish from inflation". The USG sells me debt at X.Y% interest. The money now generates safe interest, which means its safeish from inflation. A world where the USG "repays the debt" is a world where this essential product is no longer available.

High levels of debt only signals high demand for this product.

This is super-counterintuitive, but the debt has little to do with the deficit. We could run a surplus and still be in the same level of debt (in fact, this would be a tremendous place to be). We could run a deficit and have no debt (just print money, duh). The decisions that go into column A generally do not impact the decisions our leaders have to make in column B, though there are of course convenient relationships between the two.

carlosjobim2• 2 months ago

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.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.

flerchin2• 2 months ago

The way I understand my money market settlement account at vanguard, is that it's all, or nearly all, treasuries. Treasury not honoring government debt would be the worst bank failure in the history of the world.

sarchertech5• 2 months ago

We also don’t have anywhere near $175 trillion in debt. That’s a crazy made up number.

donavanm• 2 months ago

As mentioned defaults do shockingly little to change future funding. Its been years since i looked but its something like a few years of “cool down” on issuance and a few points of coupon premium. The economist has done some great, very accessible, articles on this over the years.

Second, its critical that treasury bonds are denominated in USD. The us gov controls the monetary policy and can choose to inflate away the debt over time. This is in contrast to EM debt where they get trapped with foreign denominated bonds. See also the tensions around EU debt, greece, etc.

fsuts6• 2 months ago

Not true

The powerful people holding the debt will seek to change the government to one that obeys them

827a2• 2 months ago

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.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

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.

EDIT: Never mind! Apparently we can just cut social security payments.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

...what does this have to do with these IPOs?

alex_young• 2 months ago

  The U.S. Treasury publishes a daily total of the national debt, which as of May 2026 was $39 trillion.

  a little less than half of the total national debt is owed to the "Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings"

  In December 2020, foreigners held 33% ($7 trillion out of $21.6 trillion) of publicly held U.S. debt

[~] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...

d_burfoot2• 2 months ago

39T is just the outstanding value of all the Treasury instruments (T-bills, etc). The entitlement programs (SSA and Medicare) have made commitments to certain levels of service and payments that are far in excess of the revenues they bring in, that's what is meant by "unfunded liabilities".

jonahbenton• 2 months ago

This misunderstands the power of monetization, or mistakes "dollars" having some kind of fixed "value." They do not. Whether one agrees with that or not, thinking of this as a "debt" problem where a hypothetical move is to appropriate equity- setting aside the fact that equity ALSO is not in a fixed unit of measure- anyway, thinking of appropriating equity to solve a public debt problem is a category error. That is how accounting works for business structures that exist within a monetary system but NOT for government and currency printers that define the monetary system. The MMT people are right about this. Public debt is a measure of private sector wealth. That is how the machine works.

rhubarbtree2• 2 months ago

Western debt is one of those problems you look at and say “this looks extremely alarming, why is no one panicking?” And then you assume that the elite know better and it must be manageable.

And then one day the consequences finally hit and you’re left reading the news “oh, so it turned out I was right and it was just common sense. Huh.”

US economy is screwed. UK economy is screwed. Neoliberalism killed it.

The reason everyone in politics is so elated by AI is the hope that a huge boost in productivity shrinks the debt as a portion of GDP. Talk about a wing and a prayer.

joegibbs• 2 months ago

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.

testrun2• 2 months ago

That is revenue. What is the net profit?

giancarlostoro6• 2 months ago

They reported 559 million in Q2 of this year. OpenAI on the other hand, is nowhere near this.

jandrewrogers• 2 months ago

If you are growing revenue at a high rate then taking profit is a misallocation of resources. That is short-term thinking. It is much better to reinvest in revenue growth.

You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.

elAhmo2• 2 months ago

Please don't ask those rational questions, revenue is all that maters.

Schlagbohrer• 2 months ago

These AI companies will be able to jack prices way way up once companies and users are fully addicted to doing everything with their AI.

daniel_iversen• 2 months ago

Doesn't inference have very good profit margins* but all the losses come from training?

* For now, when they don't have to compete much against companies like DeepSeek who supplies inference at 1/10th of the cost

cmrdporcupine2• 2 months ago

I suspect the answer is: in the future after Moore's law somehow inevitably does its thing.

That has worked in the past for tech infrastructure, so there is clearly a gamble that it does that again here.

kaliqt• 2 months ago

While good to ask, that is less relevant so long as they can maintain runway.

wrsh079• 2 months ago

Net profit is the wrong metric for high growth companies. You want the unit economics.

If the unit economics look great (my understanding is they're at least fine-to-good), then they should not be taking profit because it is very much in their interest to do capex to grow their capacity so that they can continue to grow.

It's a knife's edge because if they invest too aggressively it could lead to bankruptcy, but so far they've actually been quite conservative and given their unit economics they can afford to pay $$$$ for expensive inference compute (and indeed that's why they've inked a bunch of deals in the past month or two)

conradkay• 2 months ago

Looks like it'll be more like $2t

https://polymarket.com/event/anthropic-ipo-closing-market-ca...

smithza2• 2 months ago

To assess where a event betting platform has placed their lines is in no way useful here. Perhaps you are only fishing for people to pile onto the other side of a bet you made or helping you to feel well about this bet you chose to make which would be an inappropriate use of this platform.

SilverElfin3• 2 months ago

What’s defensible about Anthropic’s revenue? It seems like OpenAI and others are equivalent. Open weight models are catching up. Google has ads networks, video platforms, and so much more.

I am skeptical that Anthropic and OpenAI can defend their dominance for long enough to make meaningful gaap accounted profits

giancarlostoro6• 2 months ago

Anthropic is profitable unlike OpenAI though. Sure they'll owe a lot of money for probably decades, but if they remain profitable moving forward, it will be worthwhile.

Spooky23• 2 months ago

Anthropic seems to have clawed its way to being the best AI and charging for itself. Microsoft had to slash the Anthropic budget… which it exceeded while being the exclusive host of OpenAI.

Google seems to have a good B2B and internal leveraging AI to make $. OpenAI/Microsoft seems to have squandered an early product lead.

And then you have the Muskiverse, where we have an rocket ship company that buys surplus cyber trucks, operates a space ISP, an AI company that produces virtual fetish porn and makes money renting GPUs to Anthropic, a rando dying social network and a tunnel company to cock-block public transit.

I may be underestimating the market for AI anime porn, but I think Anthropic is probably the best in class product right now. Google and AWS are probably the best positioned sellers of AI. SpaceXAI is the dark horse because they are likely enriching the dear leader more. OpenAI is fucked.

coliveira6• 2 months ago

They will defend it the way any good monopoly always does: buying the competition. Case in point is Facebook: it is just a social network, the way they really stay on top is buying other companies and paying for people to spend even more time on their properties.

vb-84482• 2 months ago

I think their real moat is the grip they have in corporates.

Once they are in, they will catch most of the opportunities.

smithza2• 2 months ago

Open weights are only valuable to people who have access to expensive hardware to run them on. Treating Anthropic as a service that lets you rent such hardware (there are multiple products that a single token operates on) is also where Anthropics investment and reinvestment applies.

ravenstine• 2 months ago

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?

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life?

I think these IPOs are going to mint tens of thousands of new millionaires or something. That, in turn, will generate massive tax windfalls for all levels of government.

other than the ability to produce more crap?

This is a big "other than." (And to be clear, the jury is still out on whether AI will let us produce more in the long run.)

nixon_why694• 2 months ago

It's not a pyramid scheme, it's a reverse funnel.

avmich• 2 months ago

If jury is still out on positivity, long term, of AI, I'd really like to see arguments for that. Historically all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive; even some blunders had upside. AI is dangerous, yes, but e.g. fission was developed for the bomb, and now powers significant numbers of households worldwide - the tech less than 90 years old.

cloudfudge2• 2 months ago

"Tens of thousands of new millionaires" sounds like a disaster tbh.

Avicebron8• 2 months ago

Raven, Raven.. that's for those who can borrow against that to know and you to likely never find out.

What you thought your life would improve? Didn't you hear, wages are only increasing, why don't you invest some of that sweet cash into @JumpCrissCross' fund, it'll be alright. What were you going to do with healthcare anyway?

treyd• 2 months ago

Meanwhile the federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr.

throwawa13• 2 months ago

I think this is the story of tech in general. In my life, I've seen 3 really big steps down for the middle class: 2001, 2008 and then covid. Basic necessities are expensive today - people point to high GDP but what I see is high prices and poverty. And Tech, we've built a dystopian surveillance state.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

Basic necessities are expensive

There is going to be a well-deserved shitshow when these IPO proceeds start hitting real estate markets.

giancarlostoro6• 2 months ago

In terms of SpaceX (the space portion of it) they've produced the cheapest way to get any payload into space. If you pay anybody else, you will overpay drastically depending on who you want to take your payload into space.

In terms of AI, we've seen even here on HN everything from mathematical problems that remaind unsolved, being solved, mathematical proofs being used to disprove theories, heck we even learned more about alzheimers, new antibiotics, precision targeting in oncology, using AI to flag healthcare anomalies in imaging. The benefits are easy to miss, but they're snowballing into place, there's definitely an explosion of useless crap, but you have to look for the real things and you will come to find, that AI is giving us things we otherwise either might not have discovered or wouldn't have within our lifetimes.

cowmix• 2 months ago

You'll overpay -- but not by trillions.

themafia5• 2 months ago

they've produced the cheapest way

Were we struggling to do this before? Was the overall percentage reduction in costs? Was some other achievement held back because we couldn't accomplish this? What is now enabled?

to get any payload into space.

A limited set of payloads into space. No vehicle can get "any payload" to space at a fixed price.

The benefits are easy to miss,

You've listed a bunch of reasons to publish papers. What is the actual ground level change that's occurred? Are those antibiotics produced? Do they actually work just as predicted? Why is that first world problems are exclusively listed but basic problems like world hunger are never even approached?

or wouldn't have within our lifetimes.

And your life, your actual life, benefits, how?

rockskon• 2 months ago

Isn't AI routinely making significant mistakes in analyzing medical imaging?

zwarag• 2 months ago

I have yet to see an application outside of harnesses and LLMs itself where adaptation has happened on a larger scale. Devs are fine with babysitting their LLMs. People like to use LLMs to improve their mails and so on. But outside of that, the adaptation is not there yet.

Don't get me wrong. I love LLMs and use them myself. But the biggest gain for me is easier context switch and text manipulation. It's not the: replace X with a bunch of LLMs every CEO is dreaming of. So yes, you have higher productivity, but is the eval of those companies legit? x doubt.

ozgrakkurt• 2 months ago

In terms of AI, we've seen even here on HN everything from mathematical problems that remaind unsolved, being solved, mathematical proofs being used to disprove theories, heck we even learned more about alzheimers

What a story this is

UniversalBlue• 2 months ago

Sorry but SpaceX has done absulutely nothing for space other than take billions in GOV funding and never delivering what they promised years ago. Hell the only cargo they ever shipped was a banana...

itake2• 2 months ago

People want to buy SpaceX, not Twitter, Tesla, xAI. Unfortunately Elon has been conflating the three.

sharts2• 2 months ago

Do those help starving or homeless people? I don’t think so.

joquarky5• 2 months ago

I don't need anything launched into space.

Math problems being solved doesn't make necessities easier to afford.

New healthcare discoveries seem moot when only the wealthy get access (Elysium anyone?).

I'm not seeing how a typical person is getting any benefit. The only visible change they are seeing is getting exposed to more elaborate scams.

GPerson• 2 months ago

That proof has almost no significance because the average mathematician cannot spend 2 million dollars on inference.

olalonde8• 2 months ago

Comments like these make me feel like we're living in different worlds. I use LLMs multiple times a day and they've significantly improved my quality of life. They are also steadily becoming more useful over time (e.g. now solving math problems).

HerbManic• 2 months ago

I suppose many do live in different worlds.

I haven't found anything out of LLM's that has improved my life. It was a fun little toy but could never find a use case. But clearly, your mileage varies greatly from mine. That's cool.

I just personally don't the use in more when what I think many need is less. But that comes from essentially this point of view - “Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.” ― Buddha

thuuuomas• 2 months ago

Do you use Grok multiple times per day? Is Grok solving Erdos problems?

threetonesun2• 2 months ago

I’d love it if for once someone on here saying LLMs are some life changing apparatus would give a single example.

hedora2• 2 months ago

I do too, and pay $200/month, but anthropic’s margins on that revenue are negative.

What’s the long term plan? Make it up on margin? 100% tariffs on Chinese open weight models?

I don’t plan on pulling from my 401k for decades, so the long term plan is the part I care about.

dartharva• 2 months ago

Even if they are, it still doesn't justify the ridiculous levels of overvaluation. They are not essentials and their consumer demand is extremely elastic.

HDBaseT2• 2 months ago

I use LLMs daily, both as chat applications and "vibe coding".

I wouldn't say it "significantly improved my life" however. Everything AI has done for me right now is a "Nice to have" but it doesn't fulfill my needs.

newsicanuse• 2 months ago

Comments like these make me feel like AI is a computer in the hands of a monkey, and that too the computer which is unreliable.

sdevonoes• 2 months ago

It’s because people value different things. I could not care less if LLMs make me push code faster to prod. Couldn’t care less if they improve my emails grammar. Couldn’t care less if they crack one unsolved math problem.

TrackerFF2• 2 months ago

I think it is a typical example of where N% (N tends to zero) of the population GREATLY benefits AI models, while the next bracket (casual users) enjoy some benefit, but the vast majority would not feel any difference if they lost the tech tomorrow.

Let me rephrase that to you: The vast, vast majority of people, even in the western world, even the white-collar part of the population, are not whales or power users of AI models.

I use ChatGPT daily. And I never spend more than $25/month. If I lost it, it would suck, but it would not affect my life significantly. I then see people spending $100 / day on Claude Code tokens, programmers in startups / tech companies rack up thousands a month in bills. These people are literally spending 100x more than me, a casual user.

Yeah, I suspect they follow some sort of whale economics - where a relatively small userbase (in the big picture) and providing them with a huge chunk of their revenue.

But still these companies are being valued as if they're some omnipresent companies which humanity simply can't live without.

curtisblaine3• 2 months ago

So, let's see. LLMs made my overall coding output significantly faster, even factoring in review time and tech debt. My employer should technically benefit from this, but it doesn't really, because all its competitors use the same AIs and all their engineers increased their throughput in a similar way. So I'm not sure that I, my colleagues or the whole segment I work in really benefited from AI in any measurable way.

gib444• 2 months ago

Another generic, useless comment which absolutely refuses to mention any particular aspect, eg how your life has been improved. It's so tiring

And when pushed all we get is another teaser of "Significantly increased my productivity"

deaton7• 2 months ago

I don't know if its really improved my life at all. Sure I can put together quick and dirty single-use programs faster I guess, but I feel like losing that practice has actively made me a worse developer.

chasd004• 2 months ago

Try to keep perspective, these valuations are just functions of the stock market the end result of some spreadsheet. They have nothing to do with quality of life. Why would you relate those two things in the first place?

mindwok• 2 months ago

They are fundamentally different, but people desire they be aligned. The public expects the economy to producing higher quality of life for us, otherwise what is it doing? And for whom? But whether it actually does so is a function of other things. That gap seems bigger than usual right now with AI and tech eating the whole economy.

tim333• 2 months ago

In the long run stock prices are justified by sales which happen by producing things people want.

wahern• 2 months ago

Nominal global financial wealth is about $350 trillion. If you include real estate global nominal wealth is about $600 trillion.

A good portion of that[1] is what alot of people might call fake money--valuation inflation, etc. And global wealth, even just financial wealth, isn't quite as mobile across borders as one might assume. So marshalling a trillion dollars stateside is gonna make at least some moderate waves. Still, in the grand, global scheme of things a trillion dollars is a rounding error. A trillion isn't what it used to be, and there's trillions to be had even without any realized productivity gains from AI.

[1] I'm no financial analyst, but judging by the last few recessions and the overall trajectory over the past 30 years, I'd ballpark at most about 1/3 of that to go up in smoke if we had a severe downturn tomorrow. It's not all fake money. The whole world has industrialized over the past 30 years on a scale that is still unfathomable for most people today.

coliveira6• 2 months ago

The stock market is just a game that rich people use to manipulate money. It is not a reflection of the real world. Consider for example Google, one of the companies with highest valuation in the market. If Google stops working now, the only problem we'll have is getting a few minutes back of our time. Nobody will have big issues in life because one cannot find a web page, view more ads, and watch silly videos! However they will swear that Google is the most important company in the world to justify the money people throw at it. I won't even go to Meta, which is like celebrating that people are using crack cocaine...

bdangubic4• 2 months ago

you can replace “google” with every company that exists or has ever existed so no sure what the purpose of your comment is unless you are pitching abolishing the stock market. google is what they are because they make shitton of money and will continue to do so (more and more) into foreseeable future. that is stock market, always has been, always will be

ivankelly• 2 months ago

If everyone using Gmail permanently lost access to their gmail there’d be massive problems

notepad0x90• 2 months ago

this sounds like a reddit comment too much. why would trillions of dollars improve your quality of life. a bunch of companies get investments from a bunch of VCs who took out loans... and that means your quality of life should improve?

And what's more crap exactly? it feels like your grasping at straws to take one set of things and associate them with others. yeah, lots of terrible products out there, lots of enshittification, lots of topics of discussion there. But AI and GPUs are being used in such a diverse way it is impossible to have one opinion on it all like how you're trying to.

I'm not even disagreeing (or agreeing with you), I'm just saying that's a lazy comment to make. if these companies making profits without paying taxes, that's a voter problem (not even politics, just people being shitty voters, self not excluded).

For everyone else who might think they have a better formed opinion on this topic, I only ask that you apply the same level of passion to how the US national debt is now 120% of the GDP. The government is fighting wars and printing money, devaluing your wealth, and indebting your country to previously unseen levels. At least the banks and VCs are using their money (unless they get a bail out again), not your actual tax money, and the tax money and wealth of generations of Americans. You have a president literally stealing billions of dollars in broad day light from literally you.

s1artibartfast9• 2 months ago

Quality of life doesnt matter. What matters is the choices people make to spend their money on. This is what drives profits.

If you are upset about people spending their extra productivity and labor hours on poision and mental laxitives, i would mostly agree. This is a failure of culture to adapt to distratcions and shiny objects

wyager• 2 months ago

Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life?

Starlink and Claude are both awesome and huge QoL improvements for me!

__MatrixMan__• 2 months ago

It would be very nice if we had a system where the money was backed by some kind of consensus about quality of life. But what we have has more to do with compulsion.

The more dollars there are, the more deeply in debt we are. If these were interpersonal debts where we all owe the dollars to each other such that they go away when whatever promise is eventually kept, that would be a tight knit society. But instead we're all indebted to the banks, so instead we have a lot of collateral at risk, and a lot of uncertainty about whether it's a stable arrangement.

If there isn't enough money to satisfy the asking prices set by the owners of these abstractions, then we can always go deeper into debt until there is. Or we could have a debt jubilee and let the prices re-settle to something more in tune with reality.

chii4• 2 months ago

High valuations and other people's wealth doesn't need to improve _your_ individual quality of life - just the quality of life of someone who's willing to pay and the participants of that system.

karel-3d• 2 months ago

spacex makes starlink, which did improve quality of life. it is also allowing connectivity to drones in armed conflicts.

jesterson• 2 months ago

Rest assured altman and other guys have improved their quality life significantly.

throwaway203710• 2 months ago

Starlink a generational leap in Internet connectivity. The Starlink satellite constellation is over 10,000 satellites. It is hard to comprehend. Also, they will soon add mobile phone service. That will be yet another generational leap. I watched a (sadly) short YouTube video about the SpaceX factory in Seattle (area) that produces one Starlink satellite per day. That is incredibly fast. That alone sounds like a generational leap in satellite manufacturing. (Oh yeah, and they have a somewhat less technically impressive factory in Texas that produces millions of Starlink antennas per year.)

Final sad note about Starlink: It is helping Ukraine to win the war. It makes their mid- and long-range drones almost impossible to jam. (Most short-range drones use fibre optics these days to avoid jamming.)

edhelas• 2 months ago

Yes, the help Ukraine... by not connecting Crimea by choice.

Havoc4• 2 months ago

Id be more enthusiastic if I could buy starlink at a valuation based on starlink. Instead we’re getting a shitsandwich of a combo stock with a pile of regulatory manipulation on top

killerstorm• 2 months ago

1. Valuation is based on the estimate of future profits. It has absolutely nothing to do with what have already been delivered. It's not a prize, it's an estimate.

2. There's a potential to optimize a lot of economic activity in there.

vagab0nd• 2 months ago

Isn't that the market cap of the company? That doesn't mean the company creates trillions of dollars of value. It just means the number of shares times the last per share trading price is trillions of dollars.

flumpcakes2• 2 months ago

One would assume that the "market cap" of the company is equivalent to it's *worth*. Asking how Anthropic is worth $1tn+ is a valid question when it doesn't do much, apart from the promise of making a large fraction of the world unemployed and the rest under the thumb of unethical American tech supremacy. It's arguably built on the largest intellectual property theft in the history of mankind. That's generally what people worry about. Whether that's "true" or not I guess is how you frame your world view.

Rover2223• 2 months ago

Why don't you start a company that fixes problems you care about, then?

mschuster91• 2 months ago

Where's the trillions, or hundreds of billions worth in improved quality of life?

Stored in pension funds in the hope that by the time the current working class goes to pension age, there is enough left.

golden-face• 2 months ago

Feels more like: can the bond market handle any potential outflows as money is rotated into these IPOs?

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

can the bond market handle any potential outflows as money is rotated into these IPOs?

Yes. Even if this capital is just rotated out of the equity markets, it would be fine. The bond markets are orders of magnitude deeper.

megadragon9• 2 months ago

I don't think the market will swallow the stock offerings until we see early signs of GDP growth attributable to these entities. But until then, I think the cost is higher than the benefit, which "The dead economy theory" essay covered it well [0]

[0] https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

don't think the market will swallow the stock offerings until we see early signs of GDP growth attributable to these entities

Investors in these companies are going to be looking for revenue and pathway to profitability. I'm not sure anyone needs to see an impact on GDP to invest.

augstein• 2 months ago

For SpaceX (and possible the others):

Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.

From https://x.com/Hedgeye/status/2060435253928604065:

"Rule changes for the SpaceX $SPCX IPO:

Index providers waived the profitability requirement and cut the seasoning window from 90 days to 5.

This forces over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates S&P 500 funds must absorb 19% of SpaceX's float within 6 months.

Russell 1000 and Nasdaq 100 funds will absorb 24%.

The rules built to protect passive investors:

1. S&P 500 has required 12 months of trading and 4 quarters of GAAP profitability since 2002. Both waived.

2. Nasdaq cut its inclusion window from 90 trading days to 15.

3. FTSE Russell cut its to 5.

All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing."

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing

S&P has not finalized a rule change yet.

lovich4• 2 months ago

Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?

themafia5• 2 months ago

Are you actually optimistic?

Xunjin• 2 months ago

If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating...

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating...

Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.

IAmGraydon2• 2 months ago

It’s never going to happen because too many people want it to happen.

01100011• 2 months ago

We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed the rules.

deadbabe5• 2 months ago

One thing I have come to realize, is that worrying about bubbles will keep you poor.

If everyone is in the bubble and it pops, everyone is in the same boat, so you’re not really going to be poorer than your peers by comparison.

If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.

Also, just because something is a bubble doesn’t mean it has to end in a devastating pop. Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused. The exponential rise stops and prices plateau, but it just becomes a new normal and things stagnate for a while before resuming normal upward growth.

nelox3• 2 months ago

Listen to the author of “A Brief History of Financial Bubbles” argue why it probably isn’t a bubble:

https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/260347/s/233172.rss

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conversations-with-col...

https://open.spotify.com/show/0Cj2lIpGxkrw1RFVIPTa6a?si=f41c...

dominotw• 2 months ago

oh yea good way to stay out of market and retire like a poor person.

grassfedgeek• 2 months ago

This is such a scam.

SpaceX used its massive IPO and listing fees (and the prestige of being the largest IPO ever) as leverage. Index providers and exchanges saw financial incentives: listing fees, trading volume, data sales, and long-term revenue from asset managers. Reuters reported that SpaceX advisers contacted major index providers (including Nasdaq) to discuss early index entry, and that SpaceX was leaning toward listing on Nasdaq only if it got early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100.

The rules built to protect passive investors were waived:

- S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived

- Nasdaq’s seasoning window (90 trading days) → cut to 15

- FTSE Russell’s seasoning window → cut to 5 days

Meanwhile, Danish pension fund excludes SpaceX citing governance and valuation (Musk holds approximately 42.5% of the equity, but commands roughly 83-85% of total voting control): https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/danish-pension-f...

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived

S&P hasn’t announced a final rule change yet.

coliveira6• 2 months ago

People buying into space x are basically telling Musk to do anything he wants with their money, no questions asked...

lokar• 2 months ago

And CRSP (VTI)

jmyeet3• 2 months ago

You forgot the part where NASDAQ already enacted a rule change that normally prohibits small floats from index inclusion (and thus forced purchase by index funds), which was normally 10% [1]. SpaceX is only floating ~4.3% of their stock and they're triple-weighting it.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2026/04/25/spacex-...

jauntywundrkind• 2 months ago

Also worth asking what SpaceXLAI's plan is to make money. $22.7T of their $28.5T Total Addressable Market is... Drumroll... Enterprise AI! That's the plan, that's what we are investing in: spacex and Tesla and Twitter are all side shows, to sell AI. That's what everyone's absurdly overpriced forced passive investment is going to. https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mnan7hr2j...

There is nowhere near enough burning rage for this absurd fleecing of the public.

spikehoppins• 2 months ago

Do you have a source for the $30 million claim? It'd be nice to work out the math. Not _all_ of 401k funds / index funds are going to go to SpaceX.

smallerize3• 2 months ago

*trillion

The 12 largest companies in the USA together have that market cap, so probably not.

JumpCrisscross62• 2 months ago

Do you have a source for the $30 million claim?

Index funds in total had about5 $7 trillion in 2021 [1].

[1] https://alexchinco.com/double-what-you-think-it-is.pdf

prepend7• 2 months ago

As of April, the combined market cap of index funds (including ETFs) is just under $21T. [0]

Actively managed funds is $18T. And, for example, the S&P500 alone is $69T.

[0] https://www.ici.org/research/stats/combined_active_index_042...

gruez2• 2 months ago

and cut the seasoning window from 90 days to 5.

90 days or 5 days, it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup. What kind of price discovery are we expecting that would happen in the other 85 days?

donbox• 2 months ago

If it does not matter, then don't change it.

randbyte2• 2 months ago

it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup.

Not really: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/spacex-allow-early-...

HWR_147• 2 months ago

SpaceX is slowly and steadily increasing the float over the first 6 months by having a rolling end to the lockup. The only major cliff will be Elons shares

cortesoft• 2 months ago

The indexes are weighted based on the float (at least most of them)... so a small float means they will buy a much smaller number of shares.

thephyber6• 2 months ago

How about 1 more quarter of earning reports and estimates?

Forgeties793• 2 months ago

There is a world of difference between 5 and 90 days, even if you aggressively stick to the “time in the market over timing the market” strategy. If it wasn’t of consequence, then they wouldn’t be attempting to change the rules. And if SpaceX is such a great long-term investment, then they shouldn’t need the advantages this provide. Join the index funds like any other company. Let the market sort itself out.

d--b3• 2 months ago

Wow, didn’t know that.

If SpaceX tanks and 401ks are left holding the bag, this could result in the biggest class action lawsuit ever.

Analemma_• 2 months ago

Oh, SpaceX already has that covered: thanks to the TX legislature, SpaceX shareholders cannot file shareholder lawsuits, you can only complain to the "Texas Business Court" or get binding arbitration [0].

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...

s1artibartfast9• 2 months ago

why? the cards are on the table. If you buy a turd from me after I disclose the composition, that is on you

prepend7• 2 months ago

SpaceX would be the target of the lawsuits. Index funds/401ks are immaterial.

Check out previous flops like Enron (only $60b) for examples of lawsuits.

fragmede5• 2 months ago

So the obvious thing to do, for someone that's got ~$3mm to play with, is to setup an ETF that is SP500 but with the old rules. If you can convince $40mm of other people's money to go into your not-specifically-Musk-less-but-just-happens-to-be ETF, they'd come out ahead.

sersi3• 2 months ago

Only $3mm needed?

roflulz• 2 months ago

The S&P Shariah index fund is required to exclude SpaceX and already exists https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500-shar...

chinathrow• 2 months ago

Wouldn't the other index stocks need to tank as funds must be shifted by large scale investors into the these new gigalistings?

willsmith72• 2 months ago

this is disgusting corruption, a direct wealth transfer from the many to the few. shame on everyone involved

kevin_thibedeau3• 2 months ago

We need the opposition taking names for investigations in 2029. They're not all getting pardons.

mandeepj3• 2 months ago

this is disgusting corruption

The guy called 401(k)s a Ponzi scheme. Now, he's coming after them to loot.

freetime22• 2 months ago

I don't like this either, but from the article:

Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.

So people who hold ETFs that track the S&P 500 probably don't have too much to worry about. People invested in the NASDAQ 100 probably have more to be outraged about - but then again I suppose if you're invested in the NASDAQ 100, you may be consider more exposure to SpaceX to be a good thing.

chii4• 2 months ago

This needs to be higher for more visibility, because the weighting and the float's proportions are an important aspect that most news sources or comments fail to mention.

hliyan2• 2 months ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 0.1% of S&P 500 seems exceedingly huge when you consider how much of the economy is represented in the S&P 500.

deflator• 2 months ago

This really makes it clear. Thank you!

Rover2223• 2 months ago

how dare you come in with rationality in the face of ELON BAD

john_strinlai• 2 months ago

The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk.

im not a finance guy, can someone explain to me why the nasdaq would want to "woo" someone specifically? what benefit would nasdaq get? or, alternatively, what harm would befall nasdaq for not woo-ing musk?

davidw• 2 months ago

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363245 "The SpaceX Squeeze"

tdeck2• 2 months ago

What can those of us who are passive investors do to protect ourselves?

noosphr• 2 months ago

Become active investors.

bradleybuda• 2 months ago

Not buy these index funds. If you don’t want to own the entire market, don’t buy funds that seek to own the entire market. Funds like ESGV which exclude companies with poor governance have existed for a very long time - I can’t find a clear answer as to whether or not it will buy SpaceX, but I’m sure you can find funds that cater to your desires.

brikym2• 2 months ago

I asked this the other day. The response was to buy VGT instead of QQQ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324097#48334357

mock-possum• 2 months ago

Move your investments to funds that won’t automatically buy spacex stocks

energy1233• 2 months ago

You protect yourself by understanding that this is one infinitesimally small cost (expressed as a fraction of your portfolio returns) that doesn't overcome the benefits of maximum diversification and the ultra-low fees of broad-based ETFs.

Buy MSCI World, enjoy the 0.04% p.a. fees and minimal idiosyncratic risk, and relax.

Index rebalance traders will reduce your annual returns by less (probably much less) than 0.1%, but there is no better alternative for you at this moment in time.

0xDEAFBEAD2• 2 months ago

There are many large cap ETFs out there:

https://etfdb.com/etfs/size/large-cap/

You could switch to one that focuses on stocks which pay dividends, for example. That should provide a bit of protection against an AI market crash:

https://etfdb.com/etf/VIG/#etf-ticker-profile

So-called "smart beta" ETFs are also interesting. https://etfdb.com/themes/smart-beta-etfs/

Here are some factors I would expect to rule out the frothiest stocks:

"Quality Factor ETFs are made up of securities deemed to exhibit strong fundamental characteristics. These ETFs screen for stocks that have healthy balance sheets, encouraging growth prospects, and consistent improvements in their earnings."

https://etfdb.com/themes/quality-factor-etfs/

"Value-centric ETFs invest in securities deemed to possess value characteristics, including those operating in stable industries with relatively low price-to-earnings ratios."

https://etfdb.com/etfs/style/value/

"Low Volatility ETFs invest in securities with low volatility characteristics. These funds tend to have relatively stable share prices, and higher than average yields."

https://etfdb.com/etfs/investment-style/low-volatility/

Be sure to check the expense ratios on smart beta ETFs. Generally, the more sophisticated the stock screening, the more they will charge you in management fees.

As long as you're thinking about your portfolio, you may wish to consider international diversification in case the US economy implodes somehow: https://etfdb.com/themes/international-equity-etfs/

Personally, I keep my portfolio extremely conservative. My bet is that if the singularity arrives, we will all either die, or get UBI. I don't particularly care about having more moons than the other guy: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-have-only-x-years-to-es...

ashdksnndck7• 2 months ago

If you intend to remain a passive investor, keep doing what you’re doing. If you have conviction that AI boom will bust and you want to become an active investor, follow the advice from other comments on how to prevent these companies from being part of your portfolio. If you're going to become an active trader, I suggest thinking about both upside and downside risks and look beyond the local echo chamber.

etempleton4• 2 months ago

You could move your passive investment to an index that includes a great proportion of bonds or move to an entirely bond based index. You reduce the upside potential and downside potential.

I personally have moved my retirement accounts to bonds while being more aggressive with my personal investments.

0xbadcafebee2• 2 months ago

Here are some options for pre-tax retirement funds (ex. 401k):

1. Exchange your market-cap funds for S&P 500. Afaict, even with their own rules changing, they will wait up to 6 months (as opposed to 12) to let SpaceX in. This is the simplest solution that buys you time without losing other gains in the market, assuming your existing funds were broad market-cap funds. The idea here is to wait for ~5 months and see if you still want/need to exit S&P before they let SpaceX in, or pick another option.

2. Exchange your market-cap funds for RSP, an equal-weight fund. This is also simple and reduces your risk, as SpaceX's allocation of the fund would only be 0.2%.

3. Exchange your market-cap funds for a selection of different funds in order to replicate the previous allocation. Buy small-cap and mid-cap funds, and buy ETFs that cover the market without including tech. This is more complicated, but not really that complicated once you learn how to exchange funds. Still mostly passive, you're just actively managing your allocation into different indexes. Downside is you lose the gains from tech.

4. Exchange all your index funds - temporarily - for a money market fund or other low-risk, low-return investment vehicle, until SpaceX price settles down. This is the absolute simplest option, least risk, least reward. You lose all the gains from the market during this time, but a percentage of your fund doesn't disappear overnight. If you're nervous, it's safe to do this by June 11th and sit on it until July 5th and see what you'd like to do then.

You probably DO NOT want to do this for non-retirement funds, as you will get hit with capital gains taxes. You would have to estimate how much you think your portfolio would drop due to SpaceX's overinflated price falling, and compare that to your potential tax bill from rebalancing. It's almost certain that your tax hit would be higher.

pryce• 2 months ago

This should be a 5 alarm fire. It reminds me of nothing more than organized crime rackets that targeted control of union retirement funds

guywithahat• 2 months ago

Why? An index fund represents the market (usually top 100 or 500 companies), and SpaceX will certainly be in the top few companies. I would argue it's a lot riskier to buy it after the IPO price (if you're buying it secondary it would be easier to spike prices by accident), plus then it's not representative of the actual market until you've purchased the stock.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, buying at the sale price is the least risky way of purchasing the stock, which is what index funds should do. They should pursue the least risky way of indexing the market

moffkalast2• 2 months ago

If Al Capone were alive today he'd seem like an honest man compared to these crooks that are running rackets on a global scale.

DaedalusII2• 2 months ago

There are many valid complaints about public markets undervaluing businesses in comparison to private markets, now that everyone is putting their money on the line we start to see a different view being taken

which is exactly why public markets have always been a superior price discovery mechanism in comparison to private markets

saidnooneever4• 2 months ago

i read it as most likely people will lose their retirements if the companies goes bust. is that correct? in my country now they move to new pension model which will allow more aggressive investments with them. i am worried it will just get sent to these bros and i'll work until i die.

hliyan2• 2 months ago

I've been told the following (obviously negative) narrative. Can someone verify/refute some of these? I've put (?) next to questionable claims.

1. Twitter is purchased with debt

2. Debt is transferred to xAI via acquisition of X/Twitter

3. Debt is further transferred to SpaceX via acquisition of xAI

4. SpaceX IPO offered at extreme valuation

5. Index fund inclusion rules waived for SpaceX IPO: profitability requirement, inclusion period cut from 90 to 5 days

6. Index funds are largely held by passive investors such as pension funds.

7. Index fund managers are not incentivized to exclude a SpaceX from their indexes. (?)

8. Holders of original X/Twitter debt (banks) incentivized to support the rule waiver since post IPO, SpaceX will have liquidity to service/pay the debt.

9. Passive investors are unable to rapidly respond to these types of changes because liquidating portfolios will incur capital gains taxes. (?)

10. SpaceX is in Texas jurisdiction, where shareholder lawsuits are not possible and must instead go for arbitration. (?)

pj_mukh• 2 months ago

Okay before we set off the alarm though, can someone tell me What percentage of these index funds will be SPCX and TSLA?

Like if both these stocks become penny stocks what happens to the indices?

Isn’t the whole point that they are hedged across the whole market?

arrty88• 2 months ago

Should one sell their 401ks ahead of the forced buying

ejoso• 2 months ago

This should trigger all of us to be spinning up lawsuits. This whole thing is an absurd grift.

randomperson321• 2 months ago

Have you contacted your government representatives yet? I will be doing so. The federal government can probably stop this but we need to act now.

benl• 2 months ago

But the SPCX float is a small fraction of its overall shares. So it will end up being around 0.08% to 0.12% of the weight of the SP500 [1]. Nothing to write home about.

Personally, I do think SpaceX is overvalued at these proposed IPO numbers and I will trade accordingly. So should anyone else who is confident and competent at taking appropriate market positions.

1. https://www.investmentnews.com/practice-management/spacexs-i...

throwawaypath2• 2 months ago

This should be a 5 alarm fire.

Only for people that get their news from reddit.

Initial public offerings whose market capitalizations rank within the Nasdaq 100’s top members will normally be eligible to be included after 15 days of trading, Nasdaq said in a statement. The timeline is shortened from at least three months currently.

“Industry professionals, including asset managers and institutional passive portfolio managers, were mostly supportive of the Fast Entry proposal and proposed timing,” Nasdaq said in the statement.[0]

15 days vs 90 days isn't some huge shift nor is it inherently some "flaw." These changes have been asked for long before Elon entered the White House.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...

caycep• 2 months ago

How did they push this through? Trumpian regulators?

FriedPickles• 2 months ago

The money still comes from somewhere. In this case, those index funds will be forced to trim holdings of other companies. So it's cannibalizing other parts of the stock market.

chii4• 2 months ago

which, if true, would make an arbitrage opportunity for a fund that explicitly excludes these high valuation targets but buys those trimmed companies (because for trimming to have happened, they must've been sold unwillingly and thus must be under-priced).

DeathArrow• 2 months ago

The money still comes from somewhere.

Can't they just be printed and massive funds borrowing money to buy shares?

mastermage• 2 months ago

WTF

londons_explore• 2 months ago

This forces over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.

And more importantly forces them to sell the rest of the market.

Who will be on the other side of these trades? I suspect the stock market is not sufficiently liquid for all of that to happen in a single day without the rest of the market seeing a significantly depressed price, and index holders effectively gifting value to everyone else by effectively pre-announcing their large trades.

gman83• 2 months ago

This seems like straight up fraud? Presumably all to bail out early investors?

Havoc4• 2 months ago

That’s the new paradigm of US leadership. Not laws or principles but just „who’s going to stop me“

dzhiurgis• 2 months ago

And if it's not fraud, it's fascism

jjav2• 2 months ago

This is going to be very... "interesting". SpaceX will IPO with minimal float, while at the same time forcing every index fund to buy a fixed percentage. A long squeeze, so to speak.

I can't picture any scenario where this ends well.

tristanj12• 2 months ago

It's honestly blown out of proportion. S&P 500 allocation is float adjusted, i.e. the allocation is based on the market cap of the floated shares, not the total market cap. SpaceX float is ~4% at IPO, and at a $1.75T valuation that's $70B in floated shares.

SpaceX will be ~0.125% of the index. The actual amount of buying is in the low tens of billions, and given these are $30 trillion+ markets, this is hardly anything to fret about.

styx31• 2 months ago

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYA-z0Y8WRQ for a quick explanation in 10 minutes.

mgh23• 2 months ago

The crypto market is 2.5T, essentially money parked in nonproductive assets. A simple public awakening and reallocation will suffice.

adammarples3• 2 months ago

This kind of doesn't make sense. You don't park "money" "in" crypto. Crypto sits there, with its value set at the last sale price. There's nothing to stop the next sale price taking its value to zero without anything happening to real money other than some of it changing hands. It's not like crypto holders can sell $2.5T of crypto and plough it into equities, for a start some other investor will have to buy it from them for $2.5T and then we're in the same position we started in.

codethief• 2 months ago

Do we know what the situation looks like with other popular indices such as MSCI World, MSCI ACWI, MSCI ACWI IMI, FTSE All-World, …? Do they have any requirement of 12 months of trading or of profitability or similar?

conartist62• 2 months ago

Well, the good times were nice while they lasted. I fully expect a meltdown.

ilovecake1984• 2 months ago

This is why I have moved all my money out of the US market. I’d rather go for the picks and shovels in Asia and the boring rule of law in Europe.

thegreatpeter• 2 months ago

It’s an index fund. It must follow the index. They’re forced to buy any company in the SP500.

They are buying it at IPO pricing

andrepd3• 2 months ago

Cutting SNP500 from you etf portfolio seems the sensible choice now. On the other hand, things haven't been sensible for over a decade, and there's still no sign the insanity will stop. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent...

bilsbie• 2 months ago

I’m actually neutral on this so far but my main question is are they changing the rules permanently or just one time?

nonethewiser• 2 months ago

Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.

Why not just say SpaceX is being added to the SP500?

You can complain about the discretion to add it to the SP500. But that's irrelevant in terms of whether or not its "forcing" people to invest in it. Arent you upset people are forced to invest in Apple, Bank of America, etc.?

Brigand• 2 months ago

They should have to float on the market for a certain amount of time before being added to any index. This would reveal what the market value of the stocks actually is.

ActionHank2• 2 months ago

"Why don't you just say that this store is selling pants that smell of poop, it's irrelevant that someone pooped in them because they also sell other pants that no one pooped in. Aren't you upset that they also sell you pants without poop in them?"

gitfan867• 2 months ago

This fundamentally misunderstand the point of an index. The fundamental reason S&P 500 exists is to let people buy the entire market ( the top 500 companies make up most of the entire market ). That is it. Period.

They are not saying these 500 companies are going to be the most successful in 6 months or 10 years. At one point Enron was 0.6% of S&P500 because it was a large company, not because the directors at S&P500 thought the management were honest people.

If you don't like that, fine, don't buy S&P500 and buy stocks or other funds that do have companies you like.

sigmoid103• 2 months ago

This disregards the fundamental reason why people buy index funds in the first place. Rules for consistent GAAP profitability and cooldown periods specifically prevent retail investors from being exposed to particular malicious stock market tactics and overall risks that otherwise could significantly hurt them in the short term. So it's more like saying "you don't like extra risk? too bad."

webdood90• 2 months ago

Why would you accept this? Who does this serve?

I want to believe the world is full of good people but I read stuff like this and realize otherwise.

syntaxing• 2 months ago

This is simply not true and a misrepresentation of the issue. There is no issue with SP500 buying into all these companies. The issue is that “valuation” should be determined by the market before the index funds buy into it hence the original rules and policy in place. Else wise we run into the issue now where our 401K is pumping the IPO, regardless of fundamentals.

cj2• 2 months ago

The fundamental reason S&P 500 exists is to let people buy the entire market

And why do people want to buy the entire market in the first place? They want to diversify and insulate themselves from a single company crashing their portfolio value.

What are people afraid of right now? They're afraid of a single company crashing their portfolio value.

Why are people afraid of their portfolio value crashing? Because these 3 companies will fundamentally increase the overall risk and volatility of the index.

Do you see the problem?

goolz• 2 months ago

Why the special rules for SpaceX though? I still do not understand why the world’s richest man and one of the most valuable companies needs an exemption? Genuinely confused.

FeepingCreature4• 2 months ago

Absolutely nobody is forcing retirement accounts to buy S&P.

Vecr2• 2 months ago

Is there something up with your Twitter account?

root-parent• 2 months ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47613231

deaton7• 2 months ago

Changing the rules to appeal to SpaceX is really really bad... especially given the historical performance of IPOs

outside12342• 2 months ago

The only good news here is that the SP500 and wide market index funds like VTI are "float weighted", meaning they will only buy based on the dollar value of SpaceX stock sold to the public. The latest numbers are something like $75B for SpaceX, which is only something like 3% of the $2T valuation, so they will only buy a small amount of this (0.1% of the SP500 fund) because the total float for the SP500 is $45-50 trillion.

Still criminal, and also, anyone buying this individually is a fool.

derf_2• 2 months ago

It is not just the passive money. Many active managers are benchmarked against those indices, and you do not want to try to explain to your clients that you lagged in performance because you did not buy these stocks when your benchmark did. Sitting out would be taking a huge risk (of losing your job, which is important to you, as opposed to losing your clients' money, which is less important if your benchmark also lost money).

tananaev• 2 months ago

You're misrepresenting things a bit. S&P 500 has not approved those changes yet and they have some other protections as well. Nasdaq and FTSE Russell definitely sold out and should not be trusted as good indexes going forward.

Most popular passive indexes are S&P 500 and some total markets. Total index, like the one used by VTI, is likely the best spot in this case. They have not changed any rules, as far as I know.

mdnahas3• 2 months ago

Vanguard’s VTI uses an index designed by CRSP. I read the rules and, best I can tell, CRSP indices will add the stocks at the next rebalancing in September.

(FWIW, CRSP was run by U of Chicago, but they recently sold it to Morningstar.)

rustystump2• 2 months ago

Very silly question but cant someone just spin up an index cutting out spacex? Like even an etf that is nothing more than an sp500 sans non profitable companies?

rurp2• 2 months ago

Yes that's definitely possible and will probably happen. The big hurdle is traction though. How many people will know about it and be willing/able to shift into it? A lot of passive investments are effectively locked in by unrealized gains or limited 401k provider options.

findjashua• 2 months ago

nasdaq & russell, yes. but not s&p - that has a 6-month requirement for eligibility, which ensures stock is past the lock-up period.

gigatexal• 2 months ago

The rules built to protect passive investors: 1. S&P 500 has required 12 months of trading and 4 quarters of GAAP profitability since 2002. Both waived. 2. Nasdaq cut its inclusion window from 90 trading days to 15. 3. FTSE Russell cut its to 5. All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing."

Which really really sucks. We all see Trump whoring out the whitehouse for his trailer park presidency. But I didn’t anticipate the markets kowtowing like this. lol bankers gonna be bankers tho nvm

strangattractor• 2 months ago

Those changes should be taken as a harbinger. Smells a lot like 1999 when a company producing cat turds could get a listing.

kome• 2 months ago

"All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing."

that's what fiance is about after all, capturing the saving of working people :) "It's not finance, it's your pensions" https://theloop.ecpr.eu/its-not-finance-its-your-pensions/

fuzzfactor• 2 months ago

Now if you looked at it the other way around, you could say if they were trying to swallow the stock market they would probably want to start by taking some pretty much larger bites than most :|

lkbm• 2 months ago

Following up with recent news, S&P won't waive the requirements: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...

rvz• 2 months ago

How long have the SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic investors been waiting for an IPO (excluding tender offers)? 24 years, 10 years, and 5 years.

You really think they are going to hold off against selling for multi-millions for another year, especially SpaceX?

OpenAI (and especially) Anthropic are at risk from being undercut by the Chinese labs and their open-weight models and may cause their valuations to be questioned.

If that doesn't cause a correction, then SpaceX will do it for them. There is no lock up for the 5% of shares being available.

BLKNSLVR• 2 months ago

Is SpaceX going to eat Tesla? As in, are a bunch of Tesla investors going to be migrating across to SpaceX since that seems to be getting more of Elon's attention these days, especially with xAI barnacled onto the side of it?

The money to participate in the IPO has to come from somewhere...

milowata• 2 months ago

Yes. Elon has a massive controlling share in SpaceX, complete control over the board. SpaceX will be double the size of Tesla after a successful IPO, then they can swallow it and then he has the control over Tesla he’s constantly fighting for.

worik2• 2 months ago

What is the value proposition for Space-X?

As far as I can tell it is in machines they cannot make work, servicing markets that do not exist for a service that will not matter for 20-years.

That and a third rate AI company that no body wants, except to get rid of.

This will probably go swimmingly at the start - but as time goes by and they raise more capital, Musk snorts more K and the glory fades, what then?

Ekaros5• 2 months ago

I don't really see anything that really matches their valuation. Yes there is some value in launching stuff in space. But it ain't not trillion.

And for starlink. There is some market. But if terrestrial options got their stuff together it is not that big either. Userbase is marginal. As they operate in areas that are not served by other options. And that market has real limit in size.

trgn2• 2 months ago

i feel like starlink could be huge, why not the default internet connection for everybody. similar to how people abandoned landlines for cell phones.

fsuts6• 2 months ago

It’s not value proposition, it’s profit

The market : As long as you sell for more than you buy, who cares what happens long term

Hence Tesla bubble

Finance bros look to their bonus for the year, not 5 years

skybrian• 2 months ago

From Matt Levine’s column today:

The index demand is not 100% of the stock available in the IPO, or 110%, or even 50%. But it’s plausibly more than 25%. It’s not a short squeeze, but it’s a lot. Add a reported 30% allocation to retail, and arguably a majority of the IPO is being sold to price-insensitive investors. That is one way to get a high IPO price.

DC-3• 2 months ago

Do the indexes have some capacity to defer / waive buying into new stocks if they judge it in the interests of investors?

tylervigen• 2 months ago

No, arbitrary decisions would defeat the point of indexes.

But they can and do add systematic protections, like only buying based on the free float to avoid a short squeeze.

chopete3• 2 months ago

One other angle to think of is the midterm elections.

There will be chaos and potential stall for another 2 years following the elections and if the democrats win. There will be natural vested interest in showing economic decline or bad things to win next elections.

Both parties do it.

This is the best time to get to a safe place for all these companies.

nelox3• 2 months ago

What a stupid proposition. The capitalisation has already flowed to theses companies through private means.

greggoB• 2 months ago

So then what is the point of them seeking to do an IPO, if they are already capitalized?

fsuts6• 2 months ago

Investors can bank a profit at what they regard as the peak of the hype

torlok• 2 months ago

People who helped Elon buy Twitter want their money back. After all the share-swap acquisitions X shares are now SpaceX shares.

jimjimjim• 2 months ago

I am actually curious in knowing an answer to this: Does anybody think this is a good thing? A benefit to the world?

Not if anyone is cheating or scheming or being a rules lawyer, but is it good?

rf15• 2 months ago

I expect it to be catastrophic or at least chaotic and we have removed our investments from the american market and untied ourselves from the dollar as best as we can. We are sitting this one out.

vortegne• 2 months ago

Is anything in late stage capitalism good for the world? Any and all benefits are accidental and temporary.

jurschreuder• 2 months ago

They're doing an IPO now because the war in Europe with Ukraine is almost over it seems, and after that a big percentage of capital will relocate from the USA to Europe again. They are just cashing out right before the tide turns.

ai_slop_hater• 2 months ago

Why is it almost over?

ExoticPearTree2• 2 months ago

I don’t understand why there is so much pushback and skepticisim about SpaceX. They actually have a functioning product, a market where they sell the product and virtually no competition at their pricepoint.

xdertz• 2 months ago

Because they lobbied for a rule change to get fast tracked to an index forcing passive investors to buy it at IPO price instead of being included after market value corrections.

tristanj12• 2 months ago

This is completely wrong. Passive funds don't buy at IPO price. They buy after the inclusion rebalance which happens weeks later, at whatever price the market has already set. Plus the S&P500 rule change hasn't even happened yet, it's unclear if the rules in the current form will go through.

DarkNova63• 2 months ago

SpaceX is actually 3 companies, one of which is profitable. The satellite business operates at a loss and xAI is a money burning furnace.

ExoticPearTree2• 2 months ago

The satellite business operates at a loss

How come? On the books or they're actually selling internet cheaper than they source it?

xAI is a money burning furnace

So far in the AI business, it looks like only Anthropic might be profitable in the near future. On the other hand, a lot of nonprofitable companies have IPOd for billions with the hopes that one day they will become profitable.

enopod_• 2 months ago

I just had this thought: This is the story of the Great Western Desert eXploration Railway Company. Let's call it WestX for simplicity. They are building a 2000 miles railway line from the east coast into the great western desert. There is nothing there in this desert, but its a great place to set up antennas. The place is called Sunshine Plateau. Unfortunately, there is also absolutely nothing on the entire 2000 miles going there, no water, no coal, no midwest, no great planes, no gold, just empty, barren desert. So every train going out there has to haul all the coal and water it needs for the 2000 miles trip along with it. It needs about 200 wagons of water and coal to pull one wagon of antenna stuff out into the desert, but in the future, they'll build an engine so powerful, it can haul 2000 wagons of coal and water into the desert along with 10 wagons of antennas. Its a big leap forward. In the future, this super steam engine will also be able to roll back to the east coast all on its own, because its all downhill from Sunshine Plateau. The antennas need replacement every couple of years, but there is enough demand for antenna signal to run the train operation at a small profit. Also, the government likes to place some spy stuff there every once in a while, also some science stuff, and every now and then a tourist takes the journey because the view from Sunshine Plateau is really great. But thats not all! In the future, once the super engine works perfectly as promised, they will not roll all of them back down to the east coast, but they will keep an entire train at Sunshine Plateau. Then they will haul a looot of trains with a looot of coal and water into the desert to refill this one single trains 2000 fuel wagons, so it can haul 10 wagons of stuff even further out into the desert. 10 wagons! Sadly, there is no California after the desert, just another desert named Moon Hole and then behind that another desert, named Mars Basin, but thats okay because there may be gold there to exploit. WestX just has to find a way to produce coal and water out in the desert to haul that potential gold back to the east coast. But thats still not all! WestX operates a newspaper where every jerk is allowed to publish racist stuff. It runs at a loss but that doesnt matter, because trains and newspapers go well together. There is also a new hype at the east coast, named thinking machines. They're amazing and are almost always right in their answers. Other companies are at the forefront with those thinking machines, but WestX also has a little sidehustle in this business, even though their thinking machines suck. BUT! They could install those thinking machines up on Sunshine Plateau! Takes only 2000 wagons of coal to put 10 wagons of thinking machines 2000 miles out there into the void, but there is a lot of sunshine up on the plateau. The competitors just install their superior thinking machines back at the east coast, where there is also sunshine, but also cheap coal and lots of other energy resources. Anyhow, thinking machines! The Great Western Desert eXploration Railway Company will soon open up to investors at the good old Wall Street and they value themselves at $15'000'000'000'000 to $20'000'000'000'000. Some grumpy naysayers say thats quite a lot of money for a railway company that doesn't make any profit, but if all their plans work out exactly as promised, you may even not make a loss! The founder, Elon Rockefeller, who is mostly busy publishing racist articles in his newspaper every single day, and also runs a horse carriage business, has a great track record of delivering on promises, and is a well respected man.

whateverboat• 2 months ago

John Rockenfeller was an active supporter of black rights.

fsuts6• 2 months ago

Paragraphs are your friend

redwood• 2 months ago

No california. Sounds like Australia

Ekaros5• 2 months ago

It is the price. SpaceX has reasonable parts. More questionable parts. And then crap parts. Reasonable parts must pay for crap and maybe questionable.

What is reasonable value for all it does? Clearly it is not what it is now projected at.

tripledry• 2 months ago

Would have been interested in SpaceX but I don't like that xAI is being baked in so I will skip this one.

Zigurd4• 2 months ago

Even if you believe the space hype, Twitter and Grok are garbage.

epolanski• 2 months ago

According to SpaceX's own S100 filed to the SEC their future revenue is projected to be 93% AI and there's also where the overwhelming majority of the CAPEX will go.

seydor• 2 months ago

Index funds had a remarkable run. They avoided Goodhart's law for decades

AJRF• 2 months ago

If I buy the SpaceX stock it's 100% certain to go down. If I don't buy it it will rocket to the moon.

Is there some sort of way I can positively monetise this?

energy1233• 2 months ago

Keep buying single shares slowly so it keeps going down. Once it reaches $0, buy the rest for free and asset strip.

make3• 2 months ago

asset strip to the moon, literally

danw19792• 2 months ago

Buy it both long and short, then it’ll just hold steady !

adamors• 2 months ago

Well since SpaceX will be included in the SP500 and Nasdaq100 you'll buy it even if you don't want it.

raincole3• 2 months ago

Package your portfolio as a reverse index fund.

SomeUserName432• 2 months ago

If I buy the SpaceX stock it's 100% certain to go down. If I don't buy it it will rocket to the moon.

The answer is clearly to buy stocks and then short it.

(/s!!)

marcusverus• 2 months ago

DCA

IAmGraydon2• 2 months ago

I think it's actually 100% certain to go up no matter what, at least in the near term. In today's market, it doesn't matter what a company is worth or how much money they make or lose. All that matters is what global attention share they make up. How many people are thinking about them at any given time. Money flows where attention goes.

krackers• 2 months ago

attention truly is all you need

rhubarbtree2• 2 months ago

Yeah, I think it’ll go up for this reason. I will not be buying any shares, the company is insanely overvalued and hides terrible businesses. Elon is better the farm on AI in space, and if that doesn’t work things will not end well. Problem is, it reads as a post-hoc rationalisation not a long term plan.

gootz• 2 months ago

100% wrong is a valuable indicator too!

jillesvangurp2• 2 months ago

Maybe to counter some of the apparently widely expected doom and gloom:

- bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now.

- large scale infrastructure spending tends to be really good for economies. These three companies are creating lots of jobs that are mostly related to construction, energy infrastructure, hardware spending, etc. That's a lot of money flowing to suppliers and regions where that spending happens.

- While overly pessimistic sentiments about AI and space companies are widespread they aren't much more rational than the overly optimistic ones. The realist scenario could actually be that, AI and especially Agentic AI is already quite useful and the total addressable market for that is obviously larger than it is today. The question is how large. Likewise, dropping the cost of launching stuff into orbit by one or two orders of magnitude, should create a much larger market for launching stuff there. Including possibly some AI relevant compute.

The valuations of these companies are probably on the high side and I'd expect post IPO share values to drop quite a bit and would not personally consider buying anything until after that happens. But that won't necessarily trigger a stock market crisis or a collapse of these well financed companies. All the spending these companies are doing is very real and the profits of their suppliers are going to be equally real. So some of those share value losses might be offset by gains for other stocks and economic growth. The stock market and economy aren't zero sum games.

However, there are worrying macroeconomic trends happening at the same time (Iran conflict, Ukraine war) that are disrupting global markets already. But you could argue that dumping tens or hundreds of billions into e.g. energy infrastructure and data centers isn't the worst way to counter those for a country like the US. The big picture might actually be pretty positive. Especially if we can dodge global economic misery via a prolonged Gulf conflict that at this point seems to serve no point whatsoever for anyone except perhaps Israel.

throwaway63467• 2 months ago

I think so too I’m just worried about how unequally these gains will be distributed, for myself I am quite pessimistic thinking that all these gains will not benefit my life, if at all it will move the needle more towards making my expertise and skills easily replaceable by switching human capital for agentic capital. So yeah really happy for Musk to finally make his one millionth million dollars but personally I’m middle aged and still struggling financially wondering if I can ever live comfortably or retire.

andriy_koval• 2 months ago

I’m just worried about how unequally these gains will be distributed

in addition to gain distribution, large chunk of population won't see any gains, but only losses: wealth transfer to Elon and similar from their retirement/investment accounts, their jobs being replaced by AI.

vb-84482• 2 months ago

bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now.

Non really, there are a lot of signs. What is hard to predict is "when it will happen", not "if it will happen".

EDIT: Btw, a bubble popping is not necessarily a bad thing, they are necessary for markets, kinda natural fires in big forests.

randusername• 2 months ago

large scale infrastructure spending tends to be really good for economies

All infrastructure is not created equal. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to argue that datacenters are public good with net positive externalities.

Actually, you could argue that these are anti-infrastructure since they strain the electric grid for everyone and reportedly make the surrounding area unlivable with noise pollution.

jillesvangurp2• 2 months ago

Huge data centers and energy infrastructure projects mean lots of potential for local businesses to benefit, employment opportunities, etc. These companies are raising an unprecedented amount of funding and are looking for places to spend it.

With the right policy and legislation, this level of investment should be welcomed rather than opposed in most sensibly run places.

For example California and Germany have a lot in common when it comes to the locals blocking all forms of large scale infrastructure for mostly selfish reasons. Both places have broken energy infrastructure, high energy prices, high taxes, very bad roads, etc. Both have decades of backlog in terms of outdated infrastructure in need of major upgrading/fixing. Everybody is wringing their hands about fixing these issues because there is no money and tax pressure is already too high.

And here are some of the wealthiest companies in the world looking for places to spend their many billions. Surely, that's something that could be mutually beneficial. All states need to do is set some sensible terms and conditions for this. But instead you get people campaigning against this. I really don't get that negativity.

jkarni• 2 months ago

bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now.

Is that true? It seemed to me that the most common opinion before the recent Chinese real estate crash was that it was a bubble; architect friends of mine who worked in China said the government had no doubt prices were unreasonably high; the thing they remained hopeful about is whether a soft landing was possible. Similarly it seems like it was by no means an uncommon opinion in the Japanese asset bubble, NFTs, beanie babies, and even the dotcom boom that this is (to use Greenspan’s phrase leading up to the dotcom bubble) “irrational exuberance”.

coffeeandhn• 2 months ago

I also think its hard to know when it will pop. The Chinese real state bubble you are quoting is indeed a very good example. Everyone knew the prices were super high but no one really knew when it would blow. The state had a problem and they knew they had to stop it eventually. After/during the covid pandemic the state decided to start a slogan "houses are for living not for speculating" and they started to set redlines for leveraging and developing. If you know how financing works in china you know many of it flows through the state and related companies and financial structures. Then also when one of the biggest developers in the country blew up they left it to blow instead of buying it. They essentially popped it with policy.

So many would say the saw it coming but the truth is only people with inside info really knew when it would happen for sure.

Same happens today. Capital is being heavily allocated towards AI inference and infra because of the promised productivity. Nobody knows if its early or late and also nobody knows how will the state react to a possible bubble exploding. Some people would say maybe AI is too big to fall already and its better if we save it when it falls. Some people would say its better to let it blow up but again nobody knows what will truly happen until we get there.

deaton7• 2 months ago

Bubbles are extremely predictable. The problem is predicting when it will come crashing down.

mawadev• 2 months ago

I have no crystal ball, but I feel uneasy when they change basic rules about indizes right before these IPOs. There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact. Maybe big tech gambled too close to the sun and found a way out? Whether something pops or not, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth this can be done so easily, don't you think?

jmuguy• 2 months ago

This is it entirely. I don't really care if the pessimists or optimists or somewhere in between ends up being correct. What possible reason is there to change the rules around the indexes unless these companies and their backers know that time in the market is going to expose that they're overvalued and they want to force someone else to be holding the bag when that happens.

wrsh079• 2 months ago

There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact

1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio.

2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total portfolio. If it went to zero nobody would lose their shirts, they'd lose <.1% of their portfolio.

maerF0x03• 2 months ago

when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now

Thats not true. For the dotcom bubble people loudly and widely proclaimed them for a couple years until the narrative changed to "I guess this time is different?" ... and then it popped.

sharts2• 2 months ago

The valuations of these companies are probably on the high side and I'd expect post IPO share values to drop quite a bit and would not personally consider buying anything until after that happens.

The problem is that you ARE buying them precisely at the high IPO prices if you have retirement/pension funds that are invested in market indexes.

kortilla• 2 months ago

Nope, you’ll be buying at whatever the price is several days after the IPO. This could easily be below IPO prices as has happened with many other companies.

nitwit005• 2 months ago

The valuations of these companies are probably on the high side and I'd expect post IPO share values to drop quite a bit and would not personally consider buying anything until after that happens

You criticized the doom and gloom, but when it comes to your actual money, you're embracing pessimism here.

fortzi• 2 months ago

... prolonged Gulf conflict that at this point seems to serve no point whatsoever for anyone except perhaps Israel.

Dominating most of global oil and gas traffic is indeed very much a point that the US is trying to serve, albeit with arguable success. The same reasoning explains other crazy adventures like Venezuela and Greenland, as well as other more diplomatic endeavors in Panama, Gibraltar and the strait of Malaka.

The notion that the mighty US is going through all this for the sake of another country is bonkers.

deadbabe5• 2 months ago

Spacex is worth buying. The best chance to make a lot of money is buying stock before the economics make sense. By the time SpaceX looks like a good company on paper with strong profits… the price will be so high you have little chance of making anything significant. If it’s a long term hold, consider how far away retirement is for you. Also, moon bases are coming.

The AI companies IMO are fucked. In the next few years computer hardware should advance to the point that local LLMs are good enough for everyday workloads. Not everyone needs top of the line flagship models in a cloud to see productivity gains. Companies will actually save money just buying employees top of the line laptops for AI enabled work than blowing that same amount on tokens every month.

trgn2• 2 months ago

the AI companies make way way too much revenue to be f*cked, and people are hooked and they have not tested limits of their pricing power yet.

rc_mob2• 2 months ago

Warning to readers-- do not take stock advice from random comments on the internet

deadbabe5• 2 months ago

It’s not a random comment, it’s a comment from Hackernews which is filled with smart people who are tapped deep into these industries.

chilipepperhott4• 2 months ago

You're assuming the economics will ever make sense. Remember what happened to WeWork?

mattmaroon4• 2 months ago

The index fund thing seems to me to be an overhyped nothingburger. The seasoning period would just delay the inevitable when a company is launching with a trillion dollar valuation.

The big story is that that is happening at all. It wasn’t that long ago when Facebook had to get special permission from the government to stay private until they got to $100 billion.

The issue here is that public investors are missing out on so much upside.

harambae• 2 months ago

It wasn’t that long ago when Facebook had to get special permission from the government to stay private until they got to $100 billion.

is this true? There was the "Jumpstart Our Business Startups" (JOBS) Act, signed by Obama around that time that changed the maximum number of private investors or whatever, but was special permission given to Facebook?

mattmaroon4• 2 months ago

Oh I was wrong, they were forced to go public. At the time any company with $10 million in assets and 500 investors had to go public. Perhaps I misremember them trying to stay private and failing.

But the point remains, it would have been unheard of for a company 1/10 the market valuation of these companies to be private, so the public market is missing a lot of the growth phase now.

yabatopia• 2 months ago

At realistic valuations? Sure. At the current overvaluations? Yes. Are these valuations sustainable? No.

slipknotfan• 2 months ago

pop the bubble already

rc_mob2• 2 months ago

I been saying this for a year now and no popping. I dunno maybe they found a way to break the stock market so it never goes down.

me551ah• 2 months ago

None of these companies have any MOAT.

LLMs are getting better at a rapid pace and in a year or two, Chinese LLMs should easily catch up with the best of the models. Models have kind of reached a saturation point and that’s why OpenAI and Anthropic are doing an IPO now. Because a year down the line when their lead diminishes even more, they would be worth lesser money.

SpaceX has clients to put payloads into space, but those clients have always looked for good low cost alternatives. It is going to have competition in the future and will lose customers.

abhaynayar• 2 months ago

I mean sure, for LLMs, but:

It is going to have competition in the future and will lose customers.

Is that not true for everything.

tristanj12• 2 months ago

[SpaceX] is going to have competition in the future and will lose customers [to good low cost alternatives].

Okay, well who will offer a lower cost-to-orbit than SpaceX?

Zigurd4• 2 months ago

SpaceX would tell you to look at how profitable is Starlink. Two things about that: you have to replace the infrastructure every five years while terrestrial infrastructure electronics lasts at least twice as long, and inert stuff like towers and fiber lasts for decades. And you can drive a truck to where it's located if there is a problem.

Secondly, terrestrial infrastructure keeps expanding into the rural areas that Starlink counts on for most of their TAM. Except for ships at sea and extremely remote places, the Starlink TAM is chronically shrinking.

tristanj12• 2 months ago

Several issues:

1) The short lifespan is intentional. There is no reason to keep satellites beyond a few years because older satellites quickly become obsolete. The first generation Starlink sats are now 4 generations old, and are practically ancient at this point. SpaceX wants older satellites to fail, so they can be replaced by updated ones.

2) SpaceX could easily increase the lifespan of Starlink satellites to 10-15+ years, but they don't want to, because of (1), and because they are waiting for Starship to launch larger satellites at 10x lower cost.

3) Despite continually replacing satellites every ~5 years, Starlink is operating at a very profitable 40%+ profit margin.

4) Starlink is expanding to direct-to-cell 5G at speeds up to 150Mbps, which vastly expands the TAM from just broadband usage to all cellular data usage. Rural areas may never get a terrestrial cellular buildout, since it will be cheaper for companies to partner with SpaceX for coverage than to build their own towers. A single cellular tower can cost upwards of >$250k.

goosejuice2• 2 months ago

If spacex doesn't have a moat, that phrase has lost all meaning. Surely that must be a joke. Do you want to make that argument?

weatherlite• 2 months ago

Do we prefer the market will spit or swallow in this case?

ActionHank2• 2 months ago

I believe we've settled on AI bros gargling all the stocks.

LetsGetTechnicl• 2 months ago

There goes my 401k

BiteCode_dev• 2 months ago

That's how the new 1927 starts.

It will be in the history books.

kyledrake• 2 months ago

Is there an index fund that intentionally only focuses on actually profitable companies? It would actually be nice to hedge some funds into non speculative assets.

chilipepperhott4• 2 months ago

Sure. The problem is that it is impossible to predict which companies will continue to be profitable.

FlippieFinance• 2 months ago

There is a reason they IPO now I feel like. Markets at ATH, greed is bigger than fear. Now is the perfect time to IPO. Could very well be a bubble burst after that...

Lonestar1440• 2 months ago

Back in 2008, we'd perfected the art of combining high-grade and dogshit Mortgages into one Security which could be sold on to, of course, Pension Funds.

Took almost 20 years for someone to find a way to scale up the basic Scam Mechanics and try again.

If you like SpaceX's launch business (the Grade A mortgage that you personally hold and pay), know that you can't get it without xAI (The dogshit that's already delinquent)

hodder• 2 months ago

Of course the market can and this is a silly question. These issues are tiny amount of money for the global capital markets to swallow. Masa Son has endangered ostrich eggs for breakfast worth more on the daily. I kid, but seriously this is a very small amount of money to the global markets. It is more of a worry on the psychology than the size.

Remember they arent selling the entire floats of these companies. I cant read the article because Im not willing to pay for the Economist, but 400-500b in equity issuance is not a big deal to the global financial markets even though it sounds big.

Henchman21• 2 months ago

You guys remember that bit in Project 2025 where the plan was to crash the economy and buy up everything cheaply?

Do we finally see the mechanism?

tehlike• 2 months ago

Everything will be fine. You may see a little bit of dump here and there, but it'll come back roaring.

foxyv• 2 months ago

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but roaring is an interesting word to use here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

pzo2• 2 months ago

I did have few days ago conversation with AI to research how the economical environment was just before Great Depression and this doesn't look good if true. Definitely feels like someone try to dump their bags to retails investors and main street.

- Trailing P/E: 1929 peak was 32.6 vs. 32.67 today.

- Shiller PE (CAPE): 1929 peak was ~30 vs. 42.66 today (2nd highest in history).

- Buffett Indicator: Market cap was 124% of GNP in 1929 vs. 259.6% of GDP today.

- Margin Debt to GDP: 3.0% in 1929 vs. 4.1% ($1.304T) today.

- Systemic Risk: 1929 margin debt was 10-12% of total market cap vs. 1-2% today. Modern leverage has structurally shifted from retail to sovereign debt and shadow banking.

maerF0x03• 2 months ago

At least on SpaceX the float is really low. The Market only needs to "swallow" ~$100Bn in volume of shares (across the 3), which the NYSE does _daily_.

the really interesting thing will be how much will other stocks go down because the passive dollars are chasing the new shares and have to sell to rebalance?

m101• 2 months ago

interesting question, and i used the AI for help on this one:

$ value of equity purchased in indices:

- total market cap of those 3: $3.6tn

- index inclusion weights is based on free float, not full market cap

- free floats ~5%

=> 5% * 3.6tn = 180bn of these stocks in MV weight in the index

$ value of index funds: $18tn

$ value of market cap that is tracked by these index funds: $57tn

=> index funds are 18/57 = 31.6% of the market value

=> 180bn * 31.6% = $57bn of stock included in the index funds

so $57bn in sales in other companies => 57bn/18tn = 0.32% of all other stocks sold

Now for the assymmetry here:

- 57bn in sales is about 7% of daily volume for all incumbants combined

- 57bn in purchase is about 15-30 days of volume for typical stocks (hence Elon's eagerness to get them included asap)

MagicMoonlight4• 2 months ago

If we’re going to have a Great Depression, this will be the trigger.

Every single fund autodumps billions in shares and is forced to buy slop. The dumping triggers the algorithm traders who dump. The dumping triggers manual traders to dump. The crashing causes retail to dump. Everyone dumps their treasuries and gold because they’re both crashing and they want cash.

And there’s no capability to raise money in any western country, because everyone is already loaded up to pay welfare bills.

maerF0x03• 2 months ago

Exit index now, Buy non-slop at discount later. Profet.

hsnewman• 2 months ago

86 X

3sk_ask8• 2 months ago

Mercedes would have a market cap of $2 trillion according to the ARR valuations. Instead, it has $150 billion revenue, $5 billion profit and a $50 billion market cap.

Like Mercedes, Anthropic is not a growth stock because it has already been foisted on everyone.

balderdash• 2 months ago

two thoughts, the top three s&P 500 etf's have $2.7t in aum (and there are a lot of other etfs, mutual funds, and direct indexers on top of that) - so the dollars don't seem to be the problem.

I think its a little insane to have the seasoning rule for an index be inside the lockup period

throwpoaster• 2 months ago

Maybe we changed the rules so that our capital markets can protect our champions from large Chinese buy pressure at lower post-IPO valuations. Plus, these companies have probably had to demonstrate earnings stability (yes, unaudited) in order for the rules to be waived.

Is the text of the waiver and its reasoning anywhere? I guess I'll read tfa.

nla• 2 months ago

No problem, the money will rotate out of the mega corps that do almost nothing into the next generation that is in the process of changing the world!

LandoCalrissian• 2 months ago

Sure, if Elon gets to raid your retirement account it can.

jari_mustonen• 2 months ago

Maybe I'm just old school but I prefer to buy the rocket business without a social network attached.

Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?

Related Stories