Hey, about those upcoming IPOs

Not that anyone here needs to hear it, but there are some pretty remarkable statistics in this NYT piece, especially timely because of the upcoming IPOs in the news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/business/spacex-openai-anthropic-ipo-invest.html

Sky-High I.P.O. Pricing Isn’t Great for Real People

When newly public companies have been valued as richly as SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic seem likely to be, the outlook for ordinary investors has been poor.

Elon Musk doesn’t think small. Already the richest person in the world, he may soon become the first [trillionaire]. Mr. Musk is preparing to go public with SpaceX, his rocket and satellite maker, at a total valuation for the company of at least $1.25 trillion, and perhaps substantially more.

The founders of two artificial intelligence companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, are also expected to come out shortly with colossal I.P.O.s of their own. Preliminary accounts give each of those companies a targeted total valuation of $900 billion, give or take a few hundred million dollars.

These are stupendous numbers.

As Buffett has said [paraphrase] “it’s not only what you get, but the price you pay”

Market history contains many lessons. It tells us that at the jaw-dropping valuations being discussed for shares of SpaceX, as well as OpenAI and Anthropic, the probability is exceedingly small that these companies will make money for ordinary people over the next few years.

“They may be great as companies but when you buy shares in them, you should pay attention to their price,” said Jay Ritter, an economist and eminent I.P.O. expert at the University of Florida. “At the potential prices that have been reported, it would be very difficult for an investor to come out ahead in a three-year period.”

After several paragraphs explaining why this won’t be as disruptive to indices and index funds, he gets to the core of it for individual investors:

In a recent phone conversation, he pointed out an important metric, the relationship between a company’s share price and its annual sales: its price-to-sales ratio. When that ratio is high, a stock is richly valued — maybe irrationally so, reducing the odds that it will turn an investment profit within three years.

He ran the numbers for all U.S. I.P.O.s with at least $100 million in sales from 1980 through 2024. Then he sorted them by price-to-sales ratio. He found that when that ratio exceeded 40 to one — meaning it would take 40 years of sales to equal the market value at that share price — the average return over the next three years was terrible. Specifically, it underperformed the market by 15.4 percent when calculated from the insider, or “offer price,” and 58.5 percent from the closing price on the first day of trading. That closing price is what ordinary investors are likely to obtain.

At this point, we don’t know what the final pricing will be for any of the three big I.P.O.s or when they will start selling shares to the public. But there are solid clues for SpaceX, because of its prospectus, issued as a prelude to actual public sales, which are presumed to begin in June.

The document showed that SpaceX had $18.7 billion in revenue last year, and it lost $4.9 billion. Its elevated valuation is based on the assumption that its sales will keep growing rapidly — and that, eventually, it will make barrels of money. Maybe it will.

But depending on how high its total market value goes, its initial price-to-sales ratio could be somewhere between 60 and 106 . That would be far higher than the 40 threshold drawn by Mr. Ritter. The numbers are fuzzier for OpenAI and Anthropic, but both appear to be firmly above the 40 threshold.

I wondered about the history of other major tech companies. So at my request, Professor Ritter computed the price-to-sales ratios of the Magnificent Seven, which comprises Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, Google, Tesla and Facebook. Years ago, when they had their I.P.O.s., their average price-to-sales ratio was 10.7 at the offering price and 13.3 at their closing price on the first day. At the end of three years, they were generally excellent investments, averaging returns of 46.3 percent from their first-day closing price

Here is a gift link, if you care to read the entire article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/business/spacex-openai-anthropic-ipo-invest.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mlA.WOfF.F2Mwoi9F1JRK&smid=url-share

12 Likes

I recently posted an article that said the committee that controls the list of companies included in the S&P500 may violate their own rules that require a listed company to have at least one year of public trading and prove sustained profitability (four consecutive quarters of positive GAAP earnings) before the S&P Index Committee would even consider adding them. They may include these IPOs right out of the box.

That would be a deliberate attempt to capture the expected meteoric rise in their stock prices into the index.

Data from the Investment Company Institute (ICI) shows that domestic equity index funds hold over $14.3 trillion in assets, accounting for nearly 64% of all domestic equity fund assets. The vast majority of that volume sits in S&P 500 trackers like SPY, IVV, and VOO.

Passive index-fund retail investors will be impacted even if they wouldn’t buy these IPOs.

I buy low P/E, high-dividend yielding stocks that are highly rated by Morningstar and below their BMW trend line, after making sure their business is stable. BMW Method

I think the SPX is barreling down an interstate at 80 mph toward a pile-up due to sun glare. Of course, my portfolio isn’t growing as fast…but neither will it decline as fast when the bubble pops.

Wendy

9 Likes

A very smart person, and a very good investor, once told me - “An IPO is mostly an exit, so why would you want to buy when so many are exiting the position?”. As a result I very rarely chase IPOs, I think the last two IPOs I purchased were FB and LC, and I exited FB very quickly (wrongly). And most of my LC shares were the result of a pre-IPO deal I did with them, and I had a lockup period, so I couldn’t sell the shares right away.

Not as fast, but still… I also suspect you are more sensitive to pain than many a growth investor.

Remember that when the poop hits the fan, all correlations tend to converge on one.

DB2

4 Likes

This is true. It’s the reason I buy dividend-yielding stocks.
Wendy

4 Likes

I think what Dr. Bob is saying is that “dividend paying stocks” won’t save you from a bear market, though it’s a common misconception. People are willing to accept a lower long-term investment return for the illusion of safety.

That’s also how they sell annuities and LTC insurance.

intercst

Berkshire Hathaway might be a great defensive stock. It has a market cap of $1 trillion, but with $400 billion in cash.

1 Like

Yep. My cash & fixed income position via BRK, is three times what I hold in a MMF and soon to be maturing i-Bonds.

I think you mean “$400 Billion” in cash.

intercst

yes, thank you. No dividend as well, which can be helpful for managing IRMAA and ACA cliffs, as well as Roth conversions.

3 Likes

Just an FYI, referring back to the “correlations tend to converge on one” phenomenon, during the GFC Berkshire stock went down 50%.

DB2

Absolutely! That’s why Charlie Munger counseled, “If you’re not prepared to ride out (i.e., buy & hold) two or three 50% plus stock market declines during your investing lifetime, you shouldn’t be an investor.”

intercst

2 Likes

I think that the managers of the S&P 500 index are just trying accurately reflect the overall market. If you’re jettisoning the 35% of the market that’s growing, you’ll be well on the way to irrelevancy like the DOW 30.

intercst

Yep. BRK solves a lot of problems.

intercst