Investors Cool on Anthropic Shares at $3 Trillion Valuation
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Independent research firm New Constructs issued a report on Tuesday calling Anthropic’s expected 2026 IPO the “most ridiculous IPO of 2026” and valuing the company at $150 billion, versus talk of a roughly $2 trillion public-market capitalization. The firm cited reported 2025 results of $4.6 billion in revenue and a $42 billion net loss, drawing on Reuters coverage of a leaked prospectus; Anthropic has not publicly filed an S-1 and did not comment to CNBC. Separately, at a Fidelity-sponsored Tech Insider event in San Francisco, Menlo Ventures partner Matt Murphy described CEO Dario Amodei’s appeal to AI researchers, while a live poll of attendees found only three people would buy shares at a $3 trillion valuation.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Heidi Mayon, Jack Cassel and Matt Kennedy
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 8, 05:56 UTC by Business Insider, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
New York Post reported it on 2026-09-29.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered Anthropic's expected IPO as of publication, so only left-leaning coverage exists, and it does not agree with itself. That coverage reports a research firm branding the listing the "most ridiculous IPO" of the year. The firm prices Anthropic at $150 billion. Talk of a $2 trillion debut still runs through the same stories. They also cite a leaked net loss of $42 billion. CNBC leads the bear case. Business Insider records an early investor who would buy more and a crowd that barely raised hands at a higher price. A reader of the silent side misses both the loss-versus-listing mismatch and that split.
CNBC's source calls the deal a test of "investor gullibility." Business Insider's source instead praises a "boyish charm."
What will Anthropic's still-unreleased prospectus actually report for revenue and loss?
Bottom line
The argument over Anthropic's IPO — a research firm at $150 billion versus talk of a $2 trillion listing — exists only in left-leaning coverage; right-leaning outlets have not reported it.
The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
- Only three hands went up when a room was asked about buying shares at a $3 trillion valuation
The Left View
CNBC centered New Constructs’ bear case: founder David Trainer argued Anthropic lacks a viable business against open-source models, said a $2 trillion listing would mainly give liquidity to private backers, and compared the deal to WeWork (a 2019 call that aged well) while noting the firm also branded DoorDash 2020 similarly and was wrong. The piece relayed previously reported run-rate claims—including Anthropic’s late-July figure of $65 billion annualized revenue and a New York Times report of a possible $100 billion annualized pace by end of 2026—and noted New Constructs has not seen an official filing. Business Insider covered Murphy’s view that Amodei’s culture and recruiting are a competitive edge, his statement that he would buy more if he could, and muted room interest at $3 trillion versus somewhat more at $1.5 trillion, plus comments from Nasdaq’s Jack Cassel and lawyer Heidi Mayon that other issuers are waiting on Anthropic and OpenAI and that public investors now want growth with cash discipline.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is mixed: it is substantive in naming a specific firm, report, executives, event, and checkable prior calls (WeWork, DoorDash, Allbirds), but thin as a verdict on Anthropic itself because the core financials are leaked or secondhand and no official prospectus is public. Established: New Constructs published a $150 billion valuation and a “most ridiculous IPO” label; Murphy and a San Francisco audience expressed views on buying the stock; Anthropic did not respond to CNBC. Alleged or unverified: the leaked 2025 revenue/loss figures, any $2 trillion or $3 trillion IPO price, and the claim that the company has no viable business. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for an official S-1, audited financials, an Anthropic response, and whether an IPO is actually filed and at what valuation.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.