79 points arbuge 1 hour ago 66 comments
Zsfe510asG 1 hour ago | parent
davidguetta 1 hour ago | parent
dingaling911 1 hour ago | parent
The IPOs need to have buyers. The buyers will have some idea of the business valuation, as will the sellers. This is decided before the actual stock starts trading.
Specifically, the "underwriters" will go around finding people willing to buy what is being offered. This gives some idea of where it will begin to trade.
quickthrowman 59 minutes ago | parent
If your broker allocates you shares, you pay the IPO price as does everyone else who was allocated shares. The shares are all allocated before the IPO happens and once it opens for trading, price discovery happens.
How the price is set is another matter, one I’m not familiar with as an amateur.
jvanderbot 59 minutes ago | parent
QuesnayJr 55 minutes ago | parent
The stock exchange is a "secondary market", which means you're buying stock from investors who own it, not from the company itself.
pdpi 55 minutes ago | parent
addaon 46 minutes ago | parent
No, the "valuation" numbers are the market cap at the moment of IPO. The amount raised is that multiplied by the percentage of shares issued by Anthropic (as opposed to by existing shareholders like investors and employees -- that combined number is the float) at the IPO.
bushido 52 minutes ago | parent
Most of the institutional and retail placements happen on the initial valuation. These are the people who are holding the shares when it gets listed and starts trading, and it is the primary source of raising capital through an IPO.
To go further though the Initial Valuation (usually a range) is set weeks before the IPO to make it easier to pitch to investors. And the final valuation is locked in the night before trading based on actual demand.
The opening price on the stock exchange, though, will be whatever the demand and supply is in pre-market trading/open.
samuelknight 48 minutes ago | parent
silverFork 45 minutes ago | parent
Ultimately the percentage of shares that public will trade is material. say 20% for $100B is quite different from 10% for $100B.
svnt 43 minutes ago | parent
If they are too far below the perceived value, they are leaving significant money on the table.
If they are too high, the institutions who participate in IPOs will let them know. If the price craters off IPO it is not good for perception of the stock, and so ongoing health of the company even if that maximizes private investor value at IPO.
So they build a book of commitment around the target value, trying to leave enough incentive (15-20%, often) of an initial bump to get big money in.
codingdave 35 minutes ago | parent
They get the money from the initial purchase of the shares, and never get another dime directly from the market again, unless they have another offering (which is quite possible). The stock price does drive leverage for later M&A and debt/credit activities, and matters to stock-based compensation, so it does have meaning, but the IPO provides a one-time cash infusion at the initial price.
nwatson 29 minutes ago | parent
If one of the initial buyers sells in the first minute the company is public the first publicly traded shares at 1.5x their purchase price, the company suddenly has a market cap of $1.5 trillion instead of $1 trillion, and that buyer has made a tidy 50% profit on the shares they just sold. If all initial buyers dump a bunch of their shares the price likely will go down, perhaps pushing the market cap to, say, $750 billion. Regardless of this action on the first day and after, the company offering their shares still has the $100 billion.
Note that initial buyers are discouraged from selling large portions of their shares.
bunderbunder 26 minutes ago | parent
If the pop is too big, that means the company left money on the table.
If the pop is too small, the investment banks that underwrite the IPO have to worry about losing money.
badrequest 1 hour ago | parent
okdood64 46 minutes ago | parent
oblio 41 minutes ago | parent
dehrmann 37 minutes ago | parent
fullshark 33 minutes ago | parent
bel8 42 minutes ago | parent
impossiblefork 41 minutes ago | parent
Since they actually have paying customers, it's a completely different sort of thing than for Meta. The question is instead whether they can keep at the frontier, whether the compute they've signed up for is good enough, etc.
FloorEgg 36 minutes ago | parent
tarvaina 22 minutes ago | parent
Caveats: It's hard to believe that this growth rate would continue. And Meta's numbers above are trailing 12 months, while Anthropic's are annualized run rate.
outside1234 52 minutes ago | parent
pinkmuffinere 48 minutes ago | parent
Apple: 5 T
Google: 3.5 T
Meta: 1.55 T
Microsoft: 3.97 T
Berkshire Hathaway: 1.2 T
Eli Lilly: 1.28 T
Tesla: 1.38 T
Walmart: 1 T
Spotify: 125 billion
arbuge 24 minutes ago | parent
returnInfinity 12 minutes ago | parent
deliciousturkey 11 minutes ago | parent
WarmWash 48 seconds ago | parent
wongarsu 11 minutes ago | parent
There are also many positive things about them. They are huge, and innovating. But their growth potential is somewhat limited
dude250711 46 minutes ago | parent
Imagine that - 50 (fifty) times more than an average unicorn start-up!
Something they could be very proud of, and many if not all employees would become multi-hundred-thousandaires practically overnight!
stevefan1999 37 minutes ago | parent
Colossus 1 & Colossus 2 are located on Tennessee and Mississippi, and Anthropic rents both of them earlier this year.
Now that Democrats are surely going after Trump and Elon Musk and the sidekicks, and both Tennessee and Mississippi turned blue as well, this directly impacts the way Anthropic to source cheap compute and data in the future due to uncertainty around the continuation of SpaceX data centers. And other data center buildouts are likely to be paused for things like power grid connection and environmental impacts and land purpose evaluation, the compute capacity constraints are likely going south, too.
Worse, the proposals around superintelligence is exactly what Anthropic is looking for: slow the fuck down. Now they got the killshot they long desired for, it obviously makes a dent in the capability and capacity of their AI, hence a drop in valuation. I think $800-900B is somewhere I would say okay, and $600-700B is really where it is fair, considering the long term outlook for Anthropic is looming with a greater AI massacre caused by political factors.
nicce 35 minutes ago | parent
KerrAvon 11 minutes ago | parent
And open models are coming whether they like it or not.
KerrAvon 9 minutes ago | parent
tehlike 15 minutes ago | parent
xlayn 32 minutes ago | parent
So say Anthropic, or OpenAi, or smartGummyBearsAI go IPO and the price is insanely high... and then spirals down to be 10% of the real price... they earn a lot of money and the public loose a lot of money.
IF smartGummyBearsAI goes 100% realistic price and you buy near the correct price, they earn their fair money and people get an investment.
IF smartGummyBearsAI says that they have technology to use the same machine that makes gummy bears print gpus and they are priced 10,000x their actual price the society just transfers a lot of wealth to them and they scam the society.
Why shouldn't we regulate and aim for the correct price?
Remember 801k money is what we are talking about
nightski 21 minutes ago | parent
That's why it's dropping here. When the actual stock market tanked yesterday institutional investors were like - hey wait a minute this is starting to look too expensive.
Also if your 401(k) is in index funds you are safe. A company is not added to indices right away. If you are in actively managed funds or something like that you might have more exposure risk.
int32_64 26 minutes ago | parent
kamarg 8 minutes ago | parent
So many people who don't actually read and evaluate things but just buy stocks based on vibes and what they see on Twitter. Which is to say, the same people that buy and lose money on most IPOs.
notnullorvoid 4 minutes ago | parent
xyst 26 minutes ago | parent
Their numbers are shit. They are brittle af. Any shift in political climate results in internal mayhem.
Same with openai
rahulyc 25 minutes ago | parent
afavour 20 minutes ago | parent
You’re also missing the competition aspect. What if other companies have their own super genius slaves to sell at a cheaper price? What if open models allow anyone to have their own moderately genius slave at far less expense?
notnullorvoid 18 minutes ago | parent
Whoever is claiming that is an idiot.
bunderbunder 15 minutes ago | parent
And if they haven’t created an artificial superintelligence then they start to look more like just another tech startup with no moat[1] and a terrible balance sheet.
[1] I don’t know about you, but I switch model providers multiple times per day.
ryzvonusef 19 minutes ago | parent
prakhar897 11 minutes ago | parent
And its kind of circular way of reasoning. As the investors would've actually watched the video and included it in their calculations.
cmiles8 9 minutes ago | parent
The second one of these AI companies gets a fair valuation and folks start booking losses the whole AI house of cards will come crumbling down. The crazy thing is if they drop below around 1T some existing investors will be booking losses.
A realistic valuation is likely in the hundreds of billions, which would be a total disaster and thus they’re going to do everything possible to avoid that.
thisisauserid 5 minutes ago | parent