65 pointsby louiereederson8 hours ago19 comments
  • amusingimpala756 hours ago
    Are we not going to talk about the literal CFO saying their books aren’t up to rigorous reporting standards and need to wait until 2027?
    • tedd4u2 hours ago
      Current investors know the hype is sufficient to not worry about all those niggling financial details and want liquidity now -- retail will buy them out.
  • paol_taja6 hours ago
    The funniest possible outcome is OpenAI going public and then having to explain to shareholders that the path to AGI requires losing more money than previously expected, but with greater confidence.
  • Aboutplants7 hours ago
    The summer of Trillion dollar IPO’s is upon us. OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX

    Will they eat each others potential capital appetite? Or is there just that much laying around for them all to gobble up the bag?

    • davey480166 hours ago
      It depends at least partially on how much they're going to float. I think SpaceX is only planning about a 4% float, so even at $1.5T they only need around $60B. Which is a drop in the bucket.

      EDIT - but that's just the IPO, I wasn't even thinking about how much insiders will want to sell after the lockup ends...

      • ecommerceguy6 hours ago
        Is 100+ FPE the new normal?
        • phkahler6 hours ago
          The valuation just needs to be high enough to get into an index, then the 401K plans start buying the shares automatically.
        • einrealist6 hours ago
          Must be retail investors believing: big number == good.
    • aurareturn6 hours ago
      I think one of them is not like the other.

      I would invest in OpenAI or Anthropic or both but I doubt I'd invest in SpaceX.

      • RandallBrown5 hours ago
        Isn't SpaceX the only one of those that actually makes money?
        • aurareturn5 hours ago
          Personally, I don't worry about profitability in the short term. If Anthropic is adding $15b ARR every single month, and their gross margins are 50%+ (per Dario), profits are inevitable.

          The thing I'm most worried about with SpaceX is bundling X.com, xAI with it. I don't want to invest in X.com nor xAI.

          Lastly, I don't my money tied to the Elon rollercoaster.

          • tedd4u2 hours ago
            Can't wait to see where they stick the cost frontier model updates in the P&L. Maybe some kind of NRE they can amortize so it's outside of EBITDA?
  • bensyverson7 hours ago
    Let's hope—and I say this with zero sarcasm—that their relationship to Wall Street is cruel indifference.
  • cdrnsf7 hours ago
    Can't wait to see those revenue numbers.
    • Aboutplants6 hours ago
      I’m less interested in revenue and more interested in their operational costs
      • aurareturn6 hours ago
        I'm personally interested in their growth rate more than anything else. I'm not a believer that AI can't be profitable and has no moat narrative that is popular here.

        Both Altman and Dario have consistently said inference margins are high.

    • 4lx877 hours ago
      OpenAI reported ~$20 billion annualized revenue for 2025, up from $6 billion the year before.
      • cdrnsf7 hours ago
        And that covers their model training and infrastructure costs?
        • spongebobstoes6 hours ago
          each new model brings in revenue that is multiple times the cost to create said model
          • jddj6 hours ago
            Is that the case? What about gpt 4.5? o1-pro?
            • spongebobstoes6 hours ago
              with revenue >2x cost, they can afford to have a miss now and then
              • jddj6 hours ago
                If you have a machine that reliably takes $1 and makes $2 you raise debt not equity
                • bdangubic6 hours ago
                  care to elaborate? if my machine is doubling my money, why do I have to raise debt?
                  • jddj6 hours ago
                    Presumably there is some time component, i.e you need to use the machine quickly or risk losing it.

                    Also, it's better to double $2 instead of $1, and then pay back that $1.1 and end up with $2.9 instead of $2.

                    But it was a more facetious comment than I would have preferred to make, I actually went to delete it but you got in too quickly.

                    There are many reasons it's wrong, too, eg. at some level of risk debt becomes more expensive or impossible

                    But the intent of the comment was to say that if you owned as sure a thing as the GP proposed you'd do what you could to avoid selling parts of it.

          • cdrnsf6 hours ago
            So their CFO's publicly voiced concerns are unwarranted?
            • rchaud5 hours ago
              The efficient market hypothesis has taken a real beating in the age of tech industry anti-gravity valuations.
          • m_ke6 hours ago
            until it doesn't.

            scaling laws are a power law, you can only stay ahead for so long when each minor improvement gets exponentially more expensive

        • downrightmike7 hours ago
          exactly
    • jmye7 hours ago
      Agree, deeply interested in their books and then whatever report cadence we end up on next year.

      I understand that a lot of people want to cash out, but I'm surprised they're ready to share, especially given I don't think they've had issues bringing in funding in the private markets, but maybe I'm wrong.

  • aurareturn7 hours ago
    Throughout the “AI bubble” talk in 2024 and 2025, I consistently argued that we were nowhere near the peak of the AI bubble. So far, that view has held up, as valuations are significantly higher today than they were in 2024 and 2025.

    If you look at the way the dotcom bubble unfolded, dotcom didn't take off until after Netscape IPOed in 1995. The market had 5 more years of growth until the collapse. And even after collapse, the Nasdaq was 2x higher post pop than in 1995.

    If history repeats itself, the stock market will take off after OpenAI and/or Anthropic IPOs. Be scared when random AI companies IPO with bad ideas and no revenue.

    My posts on AI bubble over the years:

    * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40739829

    * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385830

    * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47035647

    * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46241944

    • nostrademons6 hours ago
      Companies IPO'd at an earlier stage of development in the days before Sarbanes-Oxley. Netscape was a 16-month-old startup when it IPO'd. It had about 250 employees. It had raised a total $27M in venture capital then, and then raised a few hundred million in the IPO itself, which gave it a total valuation of $2.9B. It had $16M in revenue and no earnings.

      OpenAI is 10 years old. It has about 4500 employees. It's raised about $180B in capital, and has a valuation of roughly $900B on about $25B in revenue. Anthropic is 5 years old. It also has around 3000-5000 employees. It will have raised about $120-140B in capital, at a $900B valuation, on about $30-45B in revenue.

      In the 80s and 90s companies IPO'd to actually raise growth capital - the public markets provided the money they needed to invest and expand, and then public investors reaped the benefits of their success, or paid the price of their failure. In the 2010s and 2020s companies grow with private capital, which has fewer strings attached, and then they unload the shares on the public market when they reach the top of their growth curve, leaving the public holding the bag.

      • ac294 hours ago
        > they unload the shares on the public market when they reach the top of their growth curve, leaving the public holding the bag

        There are definitely some dogs that IPOd and went straight down, but investing in the broad stock market has absolutely not been a bag holding experience in the past decade+

        • nostrademons3 hours ago
          At issue here is specifically the AI bubble, though, not the broad market.
    • rakel_rakel6 hours ago
      > Be scared when random AI companies IPO with bad ideas and no revenue.

      Shouldn't we at least be a little bit scared already when shoe companies pivot to AI and their stock goes up ~750%?

    • CodingJeebus6 hours ago
      I think we're a lot closer to the peak than when Netscape IPO'd relative to the dotcom bust for a few reasons:

      * big banks are trying to get out of their data center loan commitments, even selling that debt at a discount. From the article:

      > According to the Financial Times, major lenders are already scrambling to offload pieces of massive data center loans through private transactions, risk transfers and synthetic structures. The reason is simple. AI infrastructure borrowing is reaching sizes that are beginning to choke the arteries of the financial system itself.

      * there are real questions about long-term liquidity and capital capacity across the entire VC ecosystem. Ed Zitron estimates that the available capital for all technology VC funds will be fully exhausted within roughly two years if current spending levels hold steady. More money has been spent on AI in the last decade than the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Space Program and the US highway system combined[1]

      * short-term success of these new data centers coming online is heavily reliant on steady fuel prices since hooking up to the grid can take years and many burn diesel generators while waiting for grid access. If the war in Iran drags on, high fuel prices will continue to ratchet up the cost of data center operations.

      * public sentiment around the economy was largely positive heading into the collapse, whereas we've been in fairly consistent state of economic uncertainty for years now. Affordability was not a topic of conversation back then and a majority of Americans are unhappy with the direction of the economy in 2026.

      0: https://www.investing.com/analysis/the-ai-boom-is-starting-t...

      1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/19/visualising-ai-spen...

      • disgruntledphd26 hours ago
        > * big banks are trying to get out of their data center loan commitments, even selling that debt at a discount. From the article:

        This isn't necessarily a sign that they don't believe in the data centre loans, it's more than banks are basically required to avoid concentrated risk, because of the regulations we (mostly correctly) imposed upon them post GFC.

        Now, personally I'm not convinced there's enough demand for AI services that these datacentres make sense, but we'll see I guess.

        • CodingJeebus5 hours ago
          This just isn't true. Banks never offload commercial debt to non-bank entities at a discount unless they're under financial duress or they believe the loss is worth more than keeping the debt on the books.
    • yCombLinks4 hours ago
      Eh, at the beginning of 1995 the Nasdaq PE ratio was about 17.5. The current Nasdaq PE bounces around 33. During the dotcom bubble that would be the early 1998 timeframe.
    • wcvwc6 hours ago
      These backward comparisons are incredibly stupid.

      They are not very comparable - go list out the characteristics for it to be a viable comparison.

      What even is this post? Desperate for validation? LMAO

      • protimewaster6 hours ago
        If someone comes in and points out a bunch of valid similarities, are you going to start being nice, or are you just going to call that person's ideas stupid too?
  • brcmthrowaway7 hours ago
    Congrats to OpenAI and RIP to the SF housing market
  • rvz7 hours ago
    The "I" in "AGI" stands for IPO.

    So as we can clearly observe: "AGI" which at this point is (A Giant IPO) is almost here.

    Now all of humanity will benefit from this being e̶x̶i̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶q̶u̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ shared by everyone for everyone. Right?

    • glitchc7 hours ago
      Yup, Sam can claim that AGI is owned by everyone (he really means their pension funds though), while he makes a hasty exit to his private island retreat which we all have paid for.
      • IncreasePosts6 hours ago
        Sam is a power monster. He'd probably commit suicide before intentionally retiring and stepping away from influencing affairs.
  • throw031720197 hours ago
    Are they trying to beat SpaceX as well?
  • Kye7 hours ago
    Say OpenAI IPO 5 times fast
  • cess117 hours ago
    Well, I guess that's an effective way to deflect responsibility for the harms they cause from the people actually in control of their software and databases, onto 'shareholders'.
  • nodesocket7 hours ago
    Smart move IPO'ing ahead of Anthropic. Can take a lot of AI capital being first mover... That is, until Anthropic IPO's which I expect shortly.
    • aurareturn7 hours ago
      Agreed. They should IPO first if they think Anthropic’s IPO will be bigger. Get as much capital as you can first, then use it to buy more compute and defensively.

      The hype will be a lot less if Anthropic IPOs first and beats OpenAI’s numbers.

  • skiing_crawling7 hours ago
    At this point IPOs are mainly for unloading bags onto retail. Every institution who wanted a piece of these labs got in years ago and captured all the value.
    • cryo326 hours ago
      Wise comment. 25 years working in PE showed me that retail investors are how you pay off losses.
    • lofaszvanitt5 hours ago
      Yeah, and now the you shall not buy this bullshit begins. And then the price soars. :D
    • ericmay6 hours ago
      Well, sad to say this is simply untrue for a few reasons.

      1. "Retail" does not have enough purchasing power to have all of these "bags" unloaded on to.

      2. Institutions buy shares in public firms post-IPO all the time even when they're "unloading bags onto retail". Take Uber (random example) ~83% is owned by institutions.

      3. General factual history of the stock market shows that you are incorrect. Successful companies that IPO and continue to do business still have quite a lot of room left to grow. What was Google's market capitalization at IPO? What is it now? Is it possible some early investors made higher multiples than the IPO -> May 20th valuation? Yea for sure. That doesn't mean that all the value was captured. It also doesn't take into account the early stage risk for investing. Is Google an "at this point IPO"? No, but the principle is the same.

      It's also worth mentioning however that the number of IPOs is going down over time. You could maybe argue that the only ones that actually IPO are all the bags, but that seems like a stretch.

      These cynical comments "IPOs are mainly for unloading bags on to retail" lack explanatory power and data.

      • CodingJeebus6 hours ago
        It's absolutely true. Just look at how private equity is now getting access to public markets and retirement accounts[0]. You think PE is letting the little guys in out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they've extracted as much as they can and the market is starting to question the absurd valuation of private assets.

        A wise man once said: "if you're given an opportunity to cut an amazing deal and you can't tell who's getting screwed, then it's probably you"

        0: https://pestakeholder.org/news/trump-admin-bails-out-private...

        • ericmay5 hours ago
          > It's absolutely true.

          What is absolutely true? I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to.

          > Just look at how private equity is now getting access to public markets and retirement accounts[0].

          Nobody forces you to reallocate your Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund or wherever you have your retirement assets into a new Apollo fund.

          Secondarily, we should treat people like adults and allow them to make their own investment decisions.

      • hypeatei6 hours ago
        So I take it you're going to buy shares of OpenAI on opening day then? ;)

        Institutions merely owning a newly-IPO'd stock means nothing. They get access to shares at a reasonable price before opening while retail is buying at insane prices after open. See Figma as an example where institutional investors got it at $33/share and it ended the IPO day at $115/share with retail buying all the way up (including pops above that at like $127)

        I thought it was common knowledge that IPOs are a way for insiders and early investors (not IPO flippers) to get a nice exit during the frenzy.

        • ericmay6 hours ago
          > So I take it you're going to buy shares of OpenAI on opening day then? ;)

          Probably not. Do you understand however that your comment does not make sense in the context of my comment?

          > Institutions merely owning a newly-IPO'd stock means nothing. They get access to shares at a reasonable price before opening while retail is buying at insane prices after open. See Figma as an example where institutional investors got it at $33/share and it ended the IPO day at $115/share with retail buying all the way up (including pops above that at like $127)

          It also doesn't mean nothing - you have to go and analyze any given stock to make these kinds of claims on a per-IPO/equity basis. You also are ignoring traders and trading algorithms run by... big institutions and trading firms, and you're not accounting for volume or accounting for post-IPO purchases nor breaking those down by segment. In other words, you're just making stuff up.

  • iLoveOncall6 hours ago
    I'll believe it when I see it.

    Anthropic or OpenAI IPOing is literally signing their own death certificate.

    The valuation will go to zero as soon as they have to submit actual numbers instead of the salad of bullshit they usually serve investors.

  • cute_boi6 hours ago
    They better file before bubble burst.
    • iLoveOncall5 hours ago
      Them filing will burst the bubble.
  • dbbk7 hours ago
    Good luck with that I guess
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • astkl7 hours ago
    It will probably be a failure, that is why they are rushing it to prevent a greater failure.

    Microslop and Oracle are already way down from their highs. Only Nvidia as the shovel seller still performs well.

    People generally hate AI. The IPO price will be inflated and the stock will drop 10% on the first day, like many late stage IPOs in the 2000 bubble.

    Friends and family like the Kushners will cash out. Trump might even suspend wars around the IPO date.

  • aurareturn7 hours ago
    Any early guesses on end of first day market cap?

    I'm going to guess $2.5 trillion which is about 2.5x their current valuation. I think the hype is going to be immense.