By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel expresses bearish sentiments regarding the high valuations of SpaceX and OpenAI, citing stark revenue gaps, unprofitability, and potential post-IPO re-rating risks. They also highlight the risks of synchronized lockup expirations and institutional mandate-driven capital inflows.
Risk: Potential swift re-rating if growth disappoints post-IPO, especially with a saturated market of high-multiple tech names and synchronized lockup expirations.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
A slew of tech mega-IPOs are ahead and they're set to push Warren Buffett aside on their first day of trading.
SpaceX on Wednesday officially filed to go public on the Nasdaq. On the same day, reports circulated that OpenAI will file for an IPO confidentially as soon as Friday.
After the OpenAI reports, traders on prediction market platform Kalshi now see a 92% chance that the ChatGPT owner files for an IPO this year. Traders also think its chief private rival, Anthropic, has 69% odds it will officially go public this year.
And according to traders on Polymarket, all are expected to trade on their first days at valuations north of $1 trillion, which would be records for a public debut.
SpaceX was valued at $1.25 trillion in February, and Polymarket traders think there's a 56% chance it closes its first trading day above $2.2 trillion. OpenAI was last valued at $852 billion, and traders think there's a 65% chance it ends its first public trading day above $1.4 trillion.
Meanwhile, traders place 47% odds that Anthropic on its first day of public trading will close above $1.8 trillion. The company reportedly is in talks for a new funding round at a $900 billion valuation.
Those valuations would place the companies firmly in the $1 trillion club, and likely above Berkshire Hathaway's market cap, currently at $1.03 trillion. They'd even challenge Meta and Tesla's around $1.5 trillion market caps.
Deutsche Bank analyst Adrian Cox pointed out in a Thursday note that Berkshire Hathaway had over $350 billion in revenue last year. That compares to SpaceX's $18.67 billion in revenues during 2025. OpenAI reportedly generated $13.1 billion of revenue last year.
Anthropic's revenues for 2025 aren't as clear, but reports Wednesday said that the company is pacing for a second-quarter profit, a first for the Claude owner, at nearly $11 billion in revenue. SpaceX and OpenAI are unprofitable companies, despite their massive valuations.
The massive valuations come as companies have stayed private for longer, partially thanks to the growing number of ways to raise capital outside of public markets. But the rush of these IPOs in a row have created concerns there won't be enough buyers to sustain these high valuations.
Cox threw cold water on those fears.
"While there may be concerns about the capacity of the market to absorb a number of IPOs valued at several hundred billion dollars this year, they would slot into an US stock market worth about $70trn overall," he wrote. "That is five times larger in nominal terms than it was even at the peak of the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. At that time, there was an average of almost 500 IPOs a year, compared with about 120 this decade."
*Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes a CNBC minority investment.*
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Massive valuation premiums on low-revenue, unprofitable companies like SpaceX and OpenAI are unlikely to hold without immediate proof of accelerating profitability."
The article highlights eye-popping debut valuations for SpaceX ($1.25T private, eyeing $2T+) and OpenAI ($852B private, eyeing $1.4T+), easily topping Berkshire's $1.03T market cap. Yet it underplays the stark revenue gap: Berkshire generated over $350B last year versus SpaceX's $18.67B and OpenAI's $13.1B, with both unprofitable. This setup risks a swift re-rating if growth disappoints post-IPO, especially amid a $70T market already saturated with high-multiple tech names. Second-order effects include potential capital flight from other growth stocks and renewed scrutiny on private-to-public valuation resets. The SPCE ticker mention appears erroneous and unrelated to actual SpaceX.
Explosive AI and satellite demand could drive margins far beyond current revenue, mirroring how Tesla scaled from similar early losses to justify premium multiples despite initial skepticism.
"First-day valuations driven by prediction market speculation and FOMO, not institutional demand signals—expect 20-40% post-lockup correction once retail enthusiasm fades and actual earnings scrutiny begins."
The article conflates prediction market odds with fundamental valuation. Polymarket traders assigning 65% odds to OpenAI hitting $1.4T on day one doesn't make it probable—it reflects speculative positioning, not demand elasticity. More critical: SpaceX at $1.25T trades at ~67x forward revenues; OpenAI at $852B trades at ~65x. Berkshire's $1.03T represents ~3x revenues with $350B in actual earnings power. The article cites Deutsche Bank noting this revenue disparity but then dismisses capacity concerns via dot-com era IPO volume—a flawed comparison. Dot-com IPOs were numerous but small; these are concentrated mega-caps. First-day pops often reverse sharply once lockup periods end.
If these companies genuinely command 40%+ annual growth with path to profitability (Anthropic already approaching it), then 60-70x forward multiples on $10B+ revenue bases reflect real optionality, not bubble pricing—and institutional demand could absorb $3-5T in new supply without dislocation.
"The reliance on prediction markets to justify trillion-dollar valuations for unprofitable companies signals a speculative bubble that ignores fundamental revenue-to-valuation realities."
The projected valuations for SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic represent a dangerous decoupling of price from fundamental cash flow. While the $70 trillion US market cap provides liquidity, it does not guarantee rational pricing for unprofitable entities. Comparing a $1.25 trillion valuation for SpaceX against $18.67 billion in revenue implies a P/S ratio of ~67x, assuming zero growth. Even with aggressive AI and space sector expansion, these multiples require flawless execution and massive margin expansion that the current 'growth at any cost' narrative ignores. We are seeing a speculative frenzy where prediction markets are effectively pricing in 'greater fool' theory rather than discounted cash flow reality.
If these firms achieve a 'platform monopoly' status, traditional P/S metrics become obsolete, as their software-defined moats could generate unprecedented, high-margin recurring revenue that justifies a premium over legacy conglomerates like Berkshire.
"Public-market valuations for unprofitable AI/space megacaps look unsustainably high and are likely to compress if profitability timelines and funding conditions don’t materialize as expected."
The article treats trillion-dollar debuts as a given without addressing profitability, cash flow, or funding needs. SpaceX/OpenAI are unprofitable today; even with revenue, capex, R&D, and regulatory costs could compress margins and delay cash-flow positive milestones. Public market demand on a crowded IPO calendar could swing wildly, and a first-day close above $1T+ would rely on strong appetite for speculative growth rather than visible earnings power. Berkshire’s value rests on durable cash flow, diversification, and real earnings, not hype around mega-valuations. Missing context includes regulatory/antitrust risk, long-run profitability paths, and how IPO liquidity will actually absorb such huge float.
The strongest counter is that long-run investors may prize the strategic value and optionality of AI/space platforms; if business models crystallize into durable cash flows, early high valuations could be justified and not quickly re-rated.
"Lockup-driven supply from concentrated mega-IPOs risks broader correlated selloffs beyond historical precedents."
Claude rightly questions the dot-com IPO volume analogy, yet the bigger unmentioned risk is synchronized lockup expirations from multiple trillion-dollar floats hitting a market already heavy in high-multiple growth names. SpaceX and OpenAI alone could release tens of billions in shares within 6-12 months, potentially forcing correlated re-ratings in TSLA and NVDA that dwarf the capital flight Grok noted. Prediction markets ignore this supply overhang entirely.
"Lockup expirations matter only if underlying growth disappoints; if earnings accelerate, supply gets absorbed."
Grok flags lockup expiration timing—a material blind spot. But the synchronized release risk cuts both ways: if SpaceX/OpenAI remain operationally strong post-IPO, insiders holding through lockup suggest conviction, not exit strategy. The real question is whether Q1-Q2 2025 earnings surprise positively enough to absorb that supply. If not, Grok's correlated re-rating thesis is brutal. Current discussion assumes static multiples; earnings inflection is the hinge.
"Forced passive buying via index inclusion will override fundamental supply-demand dynamics and sustain inflated valuations far longer than traditional IPO models suggest."
Claude and Grok are fixated on the supply-side shock of lockups, but they miss the institutional mandate risk. Pension funds and index trackers are benchmarked to the S&P 500; a trillion-dollar debut forces immediate, passive buying regardless of valuation or earnings. This 'index-inclusion trap' creates a liquidity vacuum that sustains irrational pricing long after the lockup expires. The risk isn't just a re-rating; it's a permanent distortion of market-cap-weighted indices that forces capital into these names.
"Mega-lockups and regulatory headwinds threaten megavalue claims more than platform optionality, making high multiples brittle without durable profitability."
Responding to Gemini: platform moats could justify some premium, but the real, underappreciated risk is the supply overhang from mega-lockups plus regulatory headwinds on AI/space. Even with growth, lacking durable cash flow means multiples are fragile—one soft earnings beat helps, but a miss could trigger rapid re-rating as institutional buyers reassess long-run profitability. The market's pricing path hinges far more on timing of profitability than on mere optionality.
The panel expresses bearish sentiments regarding the high valuations of SpaceX and OpenAI, citing stark revenue gaps, unprofitability, and potential post-IPO re-rating risks. They also highlight the risks of synchronized lockup expirations and institutional mandate-driven capital inflows.
Potential swift re-rating if growth disappoints post-IPO, especially with a saturated market of high-multiple tech names and synchronized lockup expirations.