Fair, I misread the filing.

Larger point stands. SpaceX is commanding a 62x sales multiple, whether or not you personally believe price:sales should be relevant. SpaceX's AI operation is smaller and growing slower than Anthropic's. It's reasonable to expect investors to benchmark Anthropic against SpaceX, it would be silly not to do so. A normal thing one would expect investors to do is assign a higher multiple to a company that grows faster.

▲

extraextra an hour ago | parent [-]

Larger point doesn't stand, price/sales is as useful of a metric like measuring speed as mass/distance. "Yes, my speed is 100kg/10 meters".

Some people will benchmark Anthropic vs. SpaceX, that doesn't make it a smart approach.

A normal thing is to consider risk, liabilities, cashflow, how diversified revenue streams are etc., and other things which you seem to be missing.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from buying it. I'm just saying that the reasons you give are wrong.

	▲	runako 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Some people will benchmark Anthropic vs. SpaceX, that doesn't make it a smart approach. Yeah, I would not pay 62x sales for SpaceX. And I don't buy IPOs. I'm not endorsing these values, I am saying benchmarking against peers is what investors commonly do. > A normal thing is to consider risk, liabilities, cashflow, how diversified revenue streams are etc., and other things which you seem to be missing. I'm not missing those things, I am not including them here because being "right" is rarely how markets value companies. (Also because the rest of that stuff is in the S-1.) It's possible to build a "correct" model of a high-growth high-tech company that looks primarily at risk, liabilities, cashflow, and diversity of revenue streams. That model might put Anthropic at (say) a $100B valuation. That "correct" model is going to be less predictive than a model that starts from what similar firms are trading at in public markets. I personally am more interested in predictive power than correctness when evaluating stocks.