Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

IPO timing and motivations

  • Many see Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX racing to IPO before a possible AI/market downturn, locking in cash while valuations are high.
  • Some argue weaker firms should IPO first to “lock up” capital; others think core teams are still bullish on long‑term AI growth but want liquidity and bargaining power now.

Can markets “swallow” multi‑trillion IPOs?

  • Several commenters note US equity markets are extremely deep (hundreds of billions in net equity buying per year) and can technically absorb $1–3T of new market cap.
  • Others counter that market‑cap/GDP (Buffett indicator) and concentration in a few megacaps already look stretched, so additional megacaps increase systemic risk.

Are these companies wildly overvalued?

  • Bullish view:
    • Anthropic is said (by its own PR) to have very high revenue growth and possibly near-term profitability; AI already shows strong product‑market fit in coding, enterprise workflows, and some science/medical tasks.
    • SpaceX has clear demand for launch and a fast-growing Starlink business; lower launch costs may unlock new space markets.
  • Skeptical view:
    • AI infra is capital‑intensive, GPUs and models are fast‑depreciating assets, and unit economics of inference may be thin, especially vs cheap/open models (e.g., Chinese labs).
    • Claims of Anthropic’s revenue and profits are questioned as non‑GAAP and possibly front‑loaded via prepayments or discounted compute from xAI/SpaceX.
    • SpaceX’s valuation is seen as heavily padded by xAI/“AI in space” narratives and by cross‑subsidizing Twitter/xAI debts.

Index rule changes and “forced buying”

  • Big concern: Nasdaq, FTSE Russell, and potentially S&P are shortening “seasoning” periods and relaxing profitability rules so megacap IPOs (esp. SpaceX) enter major indices almost immediately.
  • This pushes trillions of dollars in passive funds, pensions, and 401(k)s to buy small floats at IPO‑set prices, while selling other holdings to make room.
  • Some view this as a structural, possibly corrupt, wealth transfer from passive savers to early private investors; others argue indices must include large companies quickly to remain representative.

Bubble vs secular shift

  • One camp sees a classic bubble: euphoric valuations, opaque accounting, rule‑bending, and moral hazard reminiscent of dot‑com and housing.
  • Another camp argues equity bubbles can deflate via stagnation rather than crashes, that AI and space capex is real infrastructure, and that long‑term productivity gains may eventually justify high multiples—even if near‑term repricing is likely.