Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

55% Positive

Analyzed from 1981 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#ipo#openai#market#anthropic#public#going#capital#retail#com#revenue

Discussion (61 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

amusingimpala75about 3 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?
bensyversonabout 3 hours ago
Let's hope—and I say this with zero sarcasm—that their relationship to Wall Street is cruel indifference.
Aboutplantsabout 3 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?

davey48016about 3 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...

ecommerceguyabout 3 hours ago
Is 100+ FPE the new normal?
phkahlerabout 3 hours ago
The valuation just needs to be high enough to get into an index, then the 401K plans start buying the shares automatically.
einrealistabout 3 hours ago
Must be retail investors believing: big number == good.
aurareturnabout 2 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.

RandallBrownabout 2 hours ago
Isn't SpaceX the only one of those that actually makes money?
aurareturnabout 2 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.

paol_tajaabout 3 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.
cdrnsfabout 4 hours ago
Can't wait to see those revenue numbers.
Aboutplantsabout 3 hours ago
I’m less interested in revenue and more interested in their operational costs
aurareturnabout 2 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.

4lx87about 3 hours ago
OpenAI reported ~$20 billion annualized revenue for 2025, up from $6 billion the year before.
cdrnsfabout 3 hours ago
And that covers their model training and infrastructure costs?
spongebobstoesabout 3 hours ago
each new model brings in revenue that is multiple times the cost to create said model
downrightmikeabout 3 hours ago
exactly
jmyeabout 3 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.

jddjabout 3 hours ago
At one point (1.5 months ago) Bloomberg posted a piece saying the private market was apparently drying up for openai due to anthropic sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/openai-de...

aurareturnabout 4 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

nostrademonsabout 3 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.

ac2920 minutes 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+

rakel_rakelabout 3 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%?

yCombLinksabout 1 hour 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.
CodingJeebusabout 3 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...

disgruntledphd2about 3 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.

CodingJeebusabout 2 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.
wcvwcabout 3 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

protimewasterabout 3 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?
brcmthrowawayabout 3 hours ago
Congrats to OpenAI and RIP to the SF housing market
rvzabout 4 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?

glitchcabout 4 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.
IncreasePostsabout 3 hours ago
Sam is a power monster. He'd probably commit suicide before intentionally retiring and stepping away from influencing affairs.
throw03172019about 3 hours ago
Are they trying to beat SpaceX as well?
Kyeabout 3 hours ago
Say OpenAI IPO 5 times fast
cess11about 4 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'.
Advertisement
nodesocketabout 4 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.
aurareturnabout 3 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_crawlingabout 3 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.
cryo32about 3 hours ago
Wise comment. 25 years working in PE showed me that retail investors are how you pay off losses.
lofaszvanittabout 2 hours ago
Yeah, and now the you shall not buy this bullshit begins. And then the price soars. :D
ericmayabout 3 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.

CodingJeebusabout 3 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...

ericmayabout 2 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.

hypeateiabout 3 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.

ericmayabout 3 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.

iLoveOncallabout 3 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_boiabout 3 hours ago
They better file before bubble burst.
iLoveOncallabout 2 hours ago
Them filing will burst the bubble.
dbbkabout 4 hours ago
Good luck with that I guess
astklabout 3 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.

aurareturnabout 4 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.