- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Market debut of AI company behind Claude chatbot will be one of largest in US history, a test of its financial viability
Anthropic has publicly filed for a stock market listing, one of the largest debuts in history. The company’s float on the US market is likely to be a high-water mark in the multitrillion-dollar AI boom and a test of its financial viability.
Analysts and investors have valued the San Francisco-based company, founded in 2021, at more than $1.5tn. The company, which will will list under the symbol ANT, confidentially filed with US financial regulators for an initial public offering in June.
You must log in or register to comment.
We believe AI is one of the most consequential technologies in human history
HAH
While (probably) not technical fraud, there is massive accounting BS in their financial reporting. $3.6B in Sales and marketing expenses has $400B+ hidden through capitalizing free services as “customer acquisition”, but rest of it is commissions paid to GOOG/AMZN partners, and shouldn’t even be part of revenue. They also capitalize training/fine tuning costs even though 1 month release schedule for model versions make previous model version worthless.
So the big lies are “operational profit” and revenue is greater than compute costs. They will have to drop Q3 results officially before IPO, and reason they didn’t is their Q2 apparent revenue to compute cost ratio lie, also hid that they got $2.5B free rental worth from xAI as part of their circular fraud deal to rent from them temporarily at absurdly inflated prices.
They are simply going to be the first. The first to get barely vetted before the IPO is approved. The first to have any circumstances waived. It won’t matter how bad the financials are because it’s already too late. The bubble is leaking but it’s still inflatable so just keep pumping because the only people left with enough money to keep it afloat are the only ones who are gonna make money when it crashes.
SpaceX was first. Even bigger fraud with circumstances waived to get in early on NASDAQ indexes. It’s a much larger overspending AI money pit, and still highly inflated.
So the investors want to get rid of the risks in their books. Hopefully they find enough MAGAs to sell the shit to.
All of us will be exposed to it if you have etf’s or a target market fund invested
Anyone with a retirement plan will be exposed to this as well.
How did they justify that valuation? All i could find in the article is what they EXPECT AI to do and they have a “rapidly growing customer base”?
Nothing about how they plan on providing $1.5t of value, just “its AI its gonna cure cancer do you wanna get left behind?!?”
Maybe a combination of cocaine and dice.
Look up project Stargate, follow the money, it wont take much digging to figure out the why and the who.
The headlines have finally started turning and calling it what it is: a bubble economy about to burst.
They’ve finally started saying “these companies are overvalued with no real strategy or profitability, and the receipts are about to come due.”
So what do the tech companies do in response? “Quick! Pump and dump! Pump and dump!”
It’s a fucking ponzi scheme. How have we not learned this yet as a society?
I wonder who will be stupid enough to buy this burning stock. With the value based on fantasy, the gargantuan losses being real, the tangible value being close to zero (most of them don’t even own the data centers, they lease them) and a product that will probably never achieve what they promise, they will need a special kind of customer. Maybe they should do mailings to the people who bought Trumps’ crypto coins…
You’d think the people whose jobs it is to understand that would see through it. But if they’re approved for the IPO, then I think some funds will be forced by policy to buy
Yes keep inflating that bubble
I am gonna list me. 2.8 trillion.
Convince us. How many billions of dollars did you lose last quarter?
I’m sad to announce I cannot list me with a trillion dollar valuation, I haven’t lost even a single billion dollars this quarter.
I get it. I found an old rock in a ditch that has a unique shape that I like. I value it at around 150 million dollars. BOOM! Economy solved!
may they go bankrupt in a short sa…er time
Shit’s gonna pump then dump like you’ve never seen before.
Their revenue in the first half of the year was 16.3 billion. That is a big increase over the 1.2 billion over the same period last year, but assuming that continues, then their annual revenue is only 32.6 billion. That is revenue. Not profit. They actually still operate at a loss, 693 million in the same period this year. That is a major improvement over the 2.1 billion dollar operating loss from the same period the year before. The trend line is going up. But the fact of the matter is that they are still very much operating in the red and their current investors are not getting and payoff for their investment until they are profitable.
They cannot generate a profit without either cutting on hardware and infrastructure investment, making their models more compute efficient/limiting the use of less efficient models, or increasing token prices. They will definitely not do either of the first two things, so prices are going to spike as soon as they go public so they can attract more investors. That is my prediction. The current investors will also sell out their shares immediately and dump the stock price screwing over all of the early adopters. Mark my words.
Gets even murkier when you look at how OpenAI did guarantee a certain % to pre-IPO investors.
These cretins all practiced their bullshittery in the crypto space and are now shoving it down the market’s throat via “real” IPOs
I don’t think a price spike will work either, the market has already priced LLMs at their cap, any higher and it’s cheaper to just hire more humans.
The problem with throwing in so hard with AI tools and using it to replace human labor is that when you inevitably decide that human labor is the cheaper option in the long term, it takes a lot of time and effort to find, and train and rebuild knowledge and specific skill. In the meantime, you are still relying on AI to fill the gaps. They were able to drop people fast and hard. They won’t be able to do the same with AI becuase people require more time to source and acclimate.
That means that, over the short term at least, these AI companies have a lot of industry by the balls. If they want to increase prices, even if that is the straw that breaks the camels back and gets them to start turning back to human labor, they are still going to pay those higher prices until they can.
That is not a recipe for a healthy long term business strategy for the AI companies. That will almost certianly lose them revenue in the long run, even with higher pricing. But if your investors are getting desperate for any return at all on their investment, a good solid pump and dump strategy makes that happen. They bail out before the other foot drops, collect their ill-gotten winnings, and walk away richer while the new shareholders eat shit when the price tanks.
The AI companies know this is a bubble just like everyone else. But bubbles are profitable to a select few if they do it right and that is all they ultimately care about. When the bubble pops, we’ll still have AI companies, but the market will settle somewhere far more reasonable and the tools will be expensive and niche and useful for special cases only. No AI company is trying to get to that point, it’s the just inevitable outcome. What they are trying to do is maximize their big payout, all else be damned.
Yuck
Economics degrees are astrology for white men. This only reinforces that point.
As someone with an economics-heavy business degree, I have said this since my intro to economics course. The fact that there are “schools”, and that some mainstream theories last only for years, not even decades, and that all governments who come in will “try” a “recipe” to see what works, is telling enough. The “laws” of economics are “kinda”, “usually”, “generally”, and above all “conditional”. There are a few things that are almost laws, like the fact that humanity is driven by the seven cardinal sins of which most can be translated into economic characteristics, and cycles (which we are hell bent in forgetting every time we are at a crest).
I’m thermodynamic’s bitch. That shit is. You can’t cheat them laws.
The fact that the seven cardinal sins have officially been codified as a principle of economics is… telling…
What are the primary drivers of humanity? Lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, and pride.
“Now how can we exploit that to extract more profit” is a question only a sociopath would ask. It explains so much about industry today though, especially marketing and yes, social media.
Astrology has more reality than economics does. At least the movements and positions of the planets is something real.
People used to navigate by it, plant and harvest by it, nomads would migrate by the movements of the stars.
Economics is just… “How much confirmation bias can we use to rationalize conclusions we’ve already determined in advance, in order to convince governments and investors to give us money that doesn’t even exist?” and “How can we frame these numbers to keep people from rioting?”
At least the movements and positions of the planets is something real.
Yes but being sad because mercury is in gatorade or whatever isn’t “real”, it’s literally prescribed to you by someone who says that when planets do X then your mood or success in whatever endeavors must be Y and Z
If the only thing you’ve heard about astrology is the “newspaper horoscopes” that attempt to be prescriptive in that way, then I could see having that opinion.
I would also argue that people who read those horoscopes and take them seriously, also do not understand astrology.
My point is that “Mercury in retrograde” is a real phenomenon, unlike “self-regulating market” or “rational/ethical consumer,” or any of the other things economists use to try to justify deregulation, austerity, and “infinite growth.”
My argument isn’t that Mercury retrograde has any effect on your mood. That’s a claim I didn’t make. But from the perspective of earth, there are times when Mercury appears to reverse its course. The other planets do it too. Hence, it is “more real than economics.”
There absolutely are real phenomenon in economics. There are none in astrology that have been proven.
But from the perspective of earth, there are times when Mercury appears to reverse its course. The other planets do it too
But that’s not astrology. Astrology is the art of giving it mysterious meanings. Mercury being in retrograde is an astronomical phenomenon.
The problem with economics is that it’s essentially sociology and you obviously can’t make absolute laws about things that involve people. But I’ll give you two simple examples that absolutely have been proven time and time again:
-
Induced demand - if you make something more available (cheaper), that in of itself is usually enough to make demand for it higher.
-
Inelastic demand - if something is an absolute necessity then it becoming more expensive doesn’t reduce demand to 0 (healthcare, fuel).
#2, incidentally, is one reason why markets will never be truly efficient and need to be regulated. The equilibrium of supply and demand can’t be what determines the price of healthcare, transportation, etc.
Economics blows up when you try to make things absolute rules, or when you try to rationalize markets that have people with tons of money FOMOing bullshit based on marketing. Two problems come to mind:
-
The P/E ratio of 10 is stated as a rule in investing, but there’s no reason that’s the exact right amount, it’s really just something that on average, people buying stocks find a sensible return rate because similar rates could be achieved elsewhere too.
-
Conversely to the last point, people marketing IPOs for companies making zero profit will convince you that really horrible P/E is fine because those companies will take over the entire global market for whatever. See, that’d be true IFF there’s a market AND they remain the biggest player. Just because a P/E ratio of 10 being optimal isn’t an absolute law of the universe doesn’t mean a P/E ratio of 1000 is any good.
-
As stated to you in a other comment. Astrology and celestial navigation are not the same. The only similarities they have is relying on the position of planets and celestial bodies. Astrology is pure pseudoscience.
Seeing as economics is also a pseudoscience, I don’t see how that contradicts my point at all.
I said the movements of the stars and planets as described by astrology is a real phenomenon. Unless you want to dispute that, you’re arguing against a strawman of your own construction.
You’re confusing astrology and astronomy.
No, astronomy is the modern science of measuring and studying outer space. It grew out of astrology in the same way that the modern science of chemistry grew out of alchemy.
Astrology and celestial navigation are not the same thing. Astrology has nothing to do with navigation or planting/harvesting cycles. The only similarities astrology has with any of that is the position of planets, but astrology is strictly a divinatory practice.
If you don’t see the inherent connection between those two things, then I don’t know what to tell you.
If an ancient boat captain was consulting an ephemeris to determine their exact position, who do you think wrote/published the ephemeris?
Long before written language was ever invented, who do you think was studying the stars and saying “now is the time to plant”?
If that’s “divinatory” then so be it, but looking at it from a modern lens of how the term is commonly used today, is anachronistic. And it doesn’t change my original point anyway, because the movements of the stars are real, unlike the so-called “laws” of economics.
I’m stealing this.
And gambling, let’s not forget the casinos and lottery raffles
The kind of gambling where the biggest losers are the ones who are not participating, and they keep whining that the winners should give them something too.
Ah yes, the self acclaimed winner in the wild.
Big toes youve got there, winning!
I’m doing quite ok, actually. Most probably better than 99% of the people commenting here in just about every way possible.
I’m not really a gambling man, though.
It would be so much more valuable as a social science/philosophy. Quantitative economics ruined the field
Investors want their Return Of Investment. If they can’t get it via token prices, they’ll need to sell their shares.
Company that has lost $125,000,000,000 in 6 years think it’s worth $1,500,000,000,000.
What a time to be alive.
Yeah, how else would they pay off that $125 trillion, without the imaginary $150 trillion that they’re begging for.
Cart before the horse? Maybe. Unconventional? They prefer the term “innovative”…
I’m more profitable than Anthropic, check please
Please, sir, I would like a billion dollars.
