upvote

  They aren't reporting anything yet. What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation.
The $24b figure is literally in OpenAI's announcement.

The $19b ARR and $6b added in Feb came directly from Anthropic CEO recently.

reply
Until they’re using consistent methods of reporting those figures, they’re not comparable. Same as any other company pre vs post IPO
reply
Was referring to this:

  What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation.
reply
> The $24b figure is literally in OpenAI's announcement.

And? That's not a legislated report; they can use whatever mechanism they want to, without disclosure, to produce numbers.

Lets wait until they are regulated as a public company, then their mechanism has to be both aligned with what legislation requires as well as clearly documented in their report.

reply
> they can use whatever mechanism they want to, without disclosure, to produce numbers.

That would be fraud against whoever participated in this round, so no. Just because they aren't regulated doesn't mean they are literally free to do whatever they want to close the round.

reply
it would be fraud only if they're also telling their investors the same numbers.
reply
I am reminded of the "I declare bankruptcy" meme from the 2000's TV series Office.

When we say reporting it means there are statutory submissions with an auditor signing off, with legal liability. As the other reply referenced consequences for doing this incorrectly can be severe - Arthur Anderson is no more after all because of Enron.

A Press Release (of a private entity) does not have to satisfy this high bar.

Press release does mean no constraints, for public companies, disclosure of important information by officers and other insiders have strong controls. Even if its the just a rocket/poop emoji on a casual social media platform. Lawyers have to refile with the SEC in the expected format. Even private companies have restrictions on not claiming things fraudulently to investors, but these are accredited investors with lesser controls than retail.

reply
Announcing isn't reporting. Am I the only one old enough to remember Enron?
reply
deleted
reply
Does the GAAP accounting matter if everyone passively buys shares due to the new fast entry rules, which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies? The fundamentals and true value seem less relevant than ever:

https://www.benzinga.com/markets/tech/26/03/51248353/michael...

reply
For other readers, I want to add some context here. NASDAQ is pondering whether or not to change their NASDAQ 100 index membership rules for IPOs. Currently, there is a three month waiting rule for IPOs. They are proposing (not sure if passed/agree/completed yet) to remove this waiting rule for IPOs.

Real question: What is the real impact of this rule change? To me, it seems so minor. Three months is just a blip in time for any long term investor.

    > which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies
Why is this "corrupt"? That term makes no sense here.

Also, if you don't like the NASDAQ 100 rules, then you don't have to invest in securities that track it. You can trade the basket yourself minus the names that you don't like.

Finally, I would say that S&P 500 index is far more important than NASDAQ 100. To join the S&P 500 index, the name must be profitable for the most recent year. (four quarters). Recall that Uber IPO'd in 2019, but was not profitable until 2023. OpenAI probably will not be profitable when it goes public; thus, it will not join the S&P 500 immediately.

I think the bigger story is SpaceX. It will likely IPO very close to a 1T USD market cap (with a small float: ~10%). And, thanks to StarLink, I assume that SpaceX is now wildly profitable.

reply
> Also, if you don't like the NASDAQ 100 rules, then you don't have to invest in securities that track it.

Isn't the idea with the indexes that they allow you to intentionally not take an activist position in the market? The exposure is not tied to any underlying market hypothesis. In other words, if we make people form a market hypothesis in order to decide whether or not to hold this index, it has failed in its purpose.

reply
Diluting the index entry rules, only devalues the index utility. When it becomes a bigger problem, other indices with higher quality controls will out compete the current ones and be used by asset managers seeking safety.

More likely than not, most of us are already holding stock in these companies one way or another. All the Mag 7 hold a major chunk of OAI and Anthropic stock anyway, slower entry does not make it less risky for us.

Even if the big tech companies did not hold any stock, they are still the biggest vendors and their own order books is hugely impacted by the AI demand from these two ( and others in this space), either way we are all in this together.

reply
> When it becomes a bigger problem, other indices with higher quality controls will out compete the current ones and be used by asset managers seeking safety

Doubt it.

The world does not allow perfect competition.

reply
lol imagine someone believing in the invisible hand of the free market in 2026
reply
In the short term there are distortions and inefficiencies. It may feel like free market is done .

However in the long term, economics usually finds the most efficient way.

Maintaining inefficient structures like tariffs or monopolies becomes more and more expensive and eventually untenable and disruptions will occur.

reply
In the long term we are all dead. (Keynes)

Really feels like 1928

reply
I personally find this is the correct solution, since indexes are over-inflated either way, this brings much needed sanity to the index. Your index is now worth much more or much less based on how you view the AI bubble and you are forced to understand and correct your forward looking investments accordingly.

Passive investments are good, but if taken too far as they clearly have been in the last decade they become a scam. Everyone is SIPing into it, and there is infinite liquidity. Until one big whale finally decides they are booking it, then all hell will break loose on the same damn day.

reply
what would force you? I guess if you are a greedy bastard you might feel that way...
reply
Yes gaap absolutely matters.

You can just choose not to play the accounting game, and only choose the ones that actually gaap viable as investment opportunities. For example mag7 - tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip.

Some times the best play is just not to play. If you think they are too risky, walk away. There are enough good oppotunities

reply

    > mag7 (minus) tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip
I asked ChatGPT for a list of Magnificent 7 stocks and their most recent price to earnings (PE) ratios.

    Company Ticker P/E Ratio
    Apple Inc. AAPL ~33
    Microsoft Corporation MSFT ~25
    Alphabet Inc. GOOGL ~29
    Amazon.com Inc. AMZN ~30
    NVIDIA Corporation NVDA ~38
    Meta Platforms Inc. META ~28
    Tesla Inc. TSLA ~378
In the last 50 years, I think the median PE ratio for S&P 500 index is about 15. Seven and below is considered rock bottom, and 30 and above is very high. These PE ratios look pretty damn high to me.

How much do these names need to "dip" for you to consider them cheap?

reply