FOLLOW US

SAN FRANCISCO — Anthropic is reportedly planning to pursue a public offering at a valuation of up to $2 trillion. This  is drawing sharp criticism from financial research firm New Constructs, which calls the potential listing the “most ridiculous IPO of 2026” and warns that investors could face extraordinary risks if the artificial intelligence company fails to deliver profits matching its lofty market expectations.

In a report released Tuesday, New Constructs argued that Anthropic’s growing operating losses, intense competition from open-source AI models and uncertain path to profitability make the proposed valuation difficult to justify. The firm estimated the company’s value at approximately $150 billion, far below the reported $2 trillion target.

The disagreement highlights a central question facing Wall Street: How much should investors pay for an AI company whose technology is rapidly gaining commercial traction but whose long-term earnings potential remains uncertain?

Anthropic $2 Trillion IPO Would Test Wall Street

Anthropic, the developer of the Claude family of artificial intelligence models, is reportedly preparing for a Nasdaq listing that could become one of the largest initial public offerings in financial history.

Reports have suggested the company could seek to raise as much as $100 billion, although the final offering size, share price, number of shares and timing would depend on formal transaction documents and market conditions.

At a $2 trillion valuation, Anthropic would enter the public markets with a market capitalization comparable to the world's largest technology companies. Such a valuation would require investors to believe that demand for advanced AI systems will translate into substantial and sustained profits over many years.

New Constructs founder and CEO David Trainer argued that the financial expectations implied by the proposed valuation are exceptionally demanding. According to the firm's analysis, Anthropic would need to generate annual profits roughly twice Nvidia's trailing four-quarter net income of more than $190 billion to support the valuation under its comparison.

That benchmark illustrates the scale of the challenge. Nvidia sells the chips and computing infrastructure powering much of the AI industry, while Anthropic primarily develops and commercializes AI models and related services.

A company's market value does not have to equal its current earnings, particularly when investors anticipate rapid growth. However, a $2 trillion valuation would leave little room for disappointing revenue growth, rising costs or stronger-than-expected competition.

Revenue Growth Meets Mounting Losses

Anthropic's reported financial figures present a striking contrast between commercial expansion and profitability concerns.

According to the information cited in the New Constructs report, Anthropic generated approximately $4.6 billion in revenue during 2025 while recording a net loss of $42 billion. Those figures, attributed to a leaked copy of the company's prospectus in reporting by Reuters, have not been independently established here through a publicly reviewed filing.

The company has also reported substantial growth in its annualized revenue run rate. Anthropic said in July that the figure had increased seven-fold year-over-year to $65 billion. A separate September report cited by New Constructs projected that the company could reach a $100 billion annualized revenue run rate by the end of 2026.

An annualized revenue run rate extrapolates a recent period's revenue into a full year. It is not the same as audited annual revenue, nor does it indicate how much money a company retains after expenses.

For investors, the distinction is critical. AI companies must pay for computing infrastructure, specialized chips, energy, research personnel and model development. Rapid sales growth may not translate into sustainable earnings if those expenses increase just as quickly.

Open-Source AI Creates Another Challenge for Anthropic

New Constructs also questioned whether Anthropic can maintain pricing power as open-source and open-weight AI models become more capable.

Companies can use these models to build applications, customize systems and reduce their dependence on proprietary AI providers. If competing models deliver comparable performance at lower costs, Anthropic could face pressure to reduce prices or spend more to distinguish its products.

The research firm concluded that the combination of operating losses and competition leaves Anthropic without what it considers a viable business model.

That assessment is an analyst's opinion, not an established fact. Anthropic's commercial prospects will depend on factors including enterprise adoption, customer retention, product differentiation, computing costs and its ability to convert demand into cash flow.

WeWork Comparison Comes With a Caveat

Trainer has previously issued highly critical assessments of major IPOs. New Constructs labeled WeWork's planned 2019 offering the most ridiculous IPO of that year, citing concerns about its finances and business model. WeWork subsequently withdrew its offering and filed for bankruptcy in 2023.

The firm also criticized Allbirds before its 2021 public debut. The footwear company initially reached a valuation of approximately $4.1 billion but later sold its assets for a reported $39 million as it shifted toward AI-related business activities.

However, New Constructs' record is not uniformly successful. The firm also criticized DoorDash ahead of its 2020 IPO, but the food delivery company went public successfully and subsequently expanded its market value.

Those examples show why investors should evaluate the underlying financial evidence rather than treat any analyst's forecast as definitive.

What Investors Should Examine Before the Listing

Anthropic's eventual IPO prospectus and related disclosures will be essential to assessing the offering. Investors should examine revenue growth, operating expenses, cash burn, outstanding obligations, ownership structure, share dilution and the proposed use of proceeds.

They should also scrutinize the company's disclosures about AI safety, legal exposure and potential regulatory restrictions. Anthropic has acknowledged that advanced AI could pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity, a concern New Constructs cited in its criticism.

For prospective shareholders, the key issue is whether the company's future earnings potential can justify the price being demanded today.

A successful listing could demonstrate that investors remain willing to finance ambitious AI development at unprecedented valuations. A disappointing debut, however, could prompt a reassessment of valuations across the technology sector.

Ultimately, Anthropic's public-market prospects will depend on whether its extraordinary growth expectations can be converted into durable profits. Until investors can evaluate comprehensive financial disclosures and final offering terms, the proposed $2 trillion valuation remains a high-stakes bet rather than a settled measure of the company's worth.