August 31, 2026
Synopsis
This article is inspired by The Economist's August 2026 discussion [1] on the growing influence of private AI companies, but it departs significantly from that framework by introducing an original capital market analysis. Rather than focusing solely on valuations, the study develops its own analytical mechanisms to examine how a potential public market transition by Anthropic and other large private technology firms could affect index composition, investor liquidity, capital allocation, and venture capital funding cycles. The result is a broader examination of how mega-scale private companies may influence both private and public markets when they eventually seek liquidity events.
Key findings and implications:
- Private Market Valuations Have Reached Unprecedented Scale
Anthropic, OpenAI, Databricks, and Stripe collectively represent more than $2 trillion in private market value. Their scale is increasingly comparable to major public companies, highlighting how a growing share of innovation and wealth creation is occurring outside public markets and raising questions about eventual pathways to liquidity. - Valuation Multiples Reflect Structural Optimism Around AI
The analysis compares revenue and valuation metrics across leading firms and finds that investors continue to assign substantial premiums to companies perceived as beneficiaries of long-term AI adoption. These elevated valuations suggest that future liquidity events could occur at scales rarely seen in modern capital markets. - Index Inclusion Could Reshape Market Concentration
Should companies of this size enter public markets, they could quickly become meaningful constituents of major equity indices. Even with relatively small public floats, their eventual inclusion may further increase concentration within benchmark indices, reinforcing the dominance of a narrow group of high-capitalization technology companies. - Mega-IPOs May Create Temporary Liquidity Pressures
Using hypothetical equity sale scenarios, the study evaluates how investor demand for large offerings could require portfolio rebalancing and capital reallocation. While such transactions would not necessarily reduce overall market liquidity, they could temporarily divert capital away from smaller issuers and competing investment opportunities. - Liquidity Events Can Accelerate Venture Capital Recycling
A central theme of the article is the venture capital liquidity flywheel: IPOs and secondary sales generate cash distributions for investors, those proceeds are redeployed into new venture funds, and capital is subsequently invested in the next generation of startups. Large-scale exits therefore have implications far beyond the companies involved, potentially stimulating future innovation and entrepreneurship. - The Broader Impact Extends Beyond Individual Listings
The article concludes that the significance of future liquidity events lies not merely in the valuations achieved by individual companies, but in their ability to reallocate capital across markets. Depending on timing, scale, and investor participation, such events may influence market concentration, funding availability, venture capital activity, and the broader flow of capital between private and public markets.
Valuation Scenarios for the Next Generation of Mega-IPOs
SpaceX launched in June 2026 the largest IPO on record, raising $75 billion [2] and entering public markets at a valuation of about $1.77 trillion. Another ambitious contender is reportedly targeting a listing just four months later, with Anthropic said to be seeking in October 2026 as much as $100 billion [3] at a valuation nearing $2 trillion [4]. Such a price tag would demand unprecedented execution, requiring the company to expand its annualized revenue run rate from approximately $65 billion currently to as much as $190-200 billion by 2028, a pace of growth rarely seen in corporate history.
Anthropic is arguably the most prominent name among a wave of highly anticipated technology IPOs expected over the coming months, many of which appear increasingly inevitable following recent funding rounds that have propelled private market valuations to new highs. While OpenAI is widely expected to explore a public listing in late 2026 or early 2027 [5], our study also examines Databricks, a cloud-based data and artificial intelligence platform, and Stripe, a global payments processor, whose recent funding rounds have elevated them into the ranks of the world's most valuable private companies. Neither Databricks nor Stripe has announced any firm plans to pursue an IPO in the near term; however, both were identified by The Economist as notable future IPO candidates due to the scale of capital they have raised and the substantial valuation growth achieved through successive funding rounds, making them relevant case studies for this analysis. Together, these firms represent a new generation of technology giants whose eventual transition to public markets could reshape capital markets by shifting ownership and price discovery from venture capital and strategic investors to a much broader investor base that includes mutual funds, pension funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and retail investors.
Using a hypothetical 10% sale of their current private market valuations, the four companies could collectively bring approximately $217 billion worth of stock to the market. Anthropic reached a valuation of $965 billion following its $65 billion Series H funding round [6] in May 2026, while OpenAI achieved an unprecedented $852 billion valuation after closing a record $122 billion funding round [7] on March 31, 2026. Databricks recently raised $5 billion [8] at a $190 billion valuation, while Stripe attained a $159 billion valuation through a secondary stock tender offer [9] for current and former employees in February 2026 (see Figure 1).
Recent reporting suggests that some bankers and investors are evaluating a potential $2 trillion valuation for Anthropic, supported in part by projected 2028 revenue of $190-200 billion. If Anthropic ultimately reached that valuation, a 10% equity sale would represent roughly $200 billion on its own. Replacing Anthropic's current $965 billion valuation with a hypothetical $2 trillion valuation would increase the combined valuation of the four companies from approximately $2.17 trillion to $3.2 trillion, raising the value of a hypothetical 10% aggregate equity sale from around $217 billion to about $320 billion. However, because comparable forward-looking valuation estimates are not available for OpenAI, Databricks, and Stripe, this study recommends current private market valuations across all four companies to ensure a like-for-like comparison.
Anthropic, OpenAI, and Databricks reached valuations of $965 billion, $852 billion, and $190 billion, respectively, following major funding rounds totaling $65 billion, $122 billion, and $5 billion. Stripe's $159 billion valuation was established through a secondary stock tender offer rather than a primary capital raise. Anthropic E* represents a hypothetical $2 trillion valuation scenario, supported by projected 2028 revenue of $190-200 billion. Source: Anthropic, OpenAI, Databricks and Stripe
Valuation Multiples: A Window into Investor Expectations
Anthropic’s annualized revenue run rate surged to approximately $65 billion by the end of July 2026 [10], while OpenAI’s surpassed $40 billion [11] and Databricks’ reached roughly $7 billion [12]. Comparing these revenue run rates with their latest private market valuations provides an indicative view of investor expectations through the price-to-sales (P/S) ratio. At current valuations, Anthropic trades at approximately 14.8x revenue, OpenAI at 21.3x, and Databricks at 27.1x (see Figure 2). Stripe is evaluated differently from the other companies, with investors focusing primarily on payment volume, take rates, loss management, and software monetization. Because payment volume is not equivalent to revenue, Stripe has been excluded from this revenue multiple analysis.
Put differently, Figure 2 shows how much investors are willing to pay today for every $1 of annualized revenue generated by these companies. Higher multiples generally reflect expectations of rapid future growth, superior profitability, market leadership, new monetization opportunities, and durable competitive advantages. At the same time, they may also indicate a greater degree of optimism embedded in the valuation, leaving less room for error if growth slows or costs prove higher than anticipated.
Viewed through this lens, Anthropic’s lower multiple does not necessarily imply that it is cheaper or a better investment than its peers. Differences in revenue recognition, compute costs, customer commitments, and business models can materially affect how these multiples should be interpreted. Figure 2 also highlights the powerful impact of revenue growth on valuation metrics. For example, if Anthropic were to reach $200 billion in annual revenue by 2028 while maintaining a $2 trillion valuation, its P/S ratio would compress to roughly 10x revenue, illustrating how valuation multiples can decline naturally over time as companies scale into their valuations.
Current private market revenue multiples stand at 14.8x for Anthropic, 21.3x for OpenAI, and 27.1x for Databricks, highlighting the varying levels of growth and profitability investors are pricing into each company. Anthropic E* represents a hypothetical $2 trillion valuation supported by projected 2028 revenue of $190-200 billion, under which its revenue multiple would compress to roughly 10x. Source: Bloomberg Finance LP.
Float, Indexes, and the Mechanics of Passive Investing
The impact of potential OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and Stripe IPOs extends beyond headline valuations. An equally important question is how and when these companies would enter the major stock market indexes that underpin trillions of dollars in passive investment funds. Contrary to popular perception, a company does not automatically join the S&P 500 simply because it has achieved a trillion-dollar valuation. Following an IPO, companies typically progress through a series of eligibility stages before gaining admission to a major stock market index, including public float, market capitalization, liquidity, and trading history requirements, followed by an index review process where applicable. Once included, they become eligible for ownership by index-tracking ETFs, mutual funds, pension funds, and other passive investment vehicles.
SpaceX provides a notable example of how these timelines can vary. To facilitate its inclusion, Nasdaq introduced a fast-track pathway that allowed the company to qualify for the Nasdaq-100 after just 15 trading days [13], significantly shorter than the waiting periods historically observed for many large IPOs. Figure 3 compares this accelerated route with the experiences of Arm Holdings and Airbnb. Arm, which began trading on September 14, 2023, waited 273 days before Nasdaq announced its inclusion on June 13, 2024, with its entry becoming effective on June 24, 2024. Airbnb waited a full year after its December 10, 2020 listing before Nasdaq announced its addition through the annual reconstitution process on December 10, 2021, with inclusion becoming effective on December 20, 2021. While publicly available sources do not disclose the precise dates on which companies satisfy market capitalization, liquidity, financial eligibility, or trading history requirements, these remain important milestones in the index admission process. Accordingly, Figure 3 focuses on observable events: the public float date, the index inclusion announcement, and the effective inclusion date. The comparison also highlights the differing approaches taken by major index providers. Whereas Nasdaq reduced the waiting period for qualifying IPOs to 15 trading days for the Nasdaq-100, S&P Dow Jones Indices maintained its existing methodology for the S&P 500, requiring a one-year seasoning period as well as GAAP profitability in the most recent quarter and cumulatively over the previous four quarters. Other benchmarks are more flexible, with the FTSE Russell U.S. Indices, such as the Russell 1000/3000, and CRSP U.S. Total Market Index allowing eligible large IPOs to be considered after five trading days, while MSCI’s Global Standard Indexes permit inclusion after approximately 10 trading days. Together, these differences illustrate that index inclusion is determined not only by company size but also by the specific eligibility framework and review process employed by each index provider.
The chart illustrates how quickly index inclusion timelines can diverge after an IPO. SpaceX reached effective Nasdaq-100 inclusion just 25 days after its public debut under Nasdaq's 15-trading-day fast-track framework, compared with 284 days for Arm Holdings and 375 days for Airbnb. Across major index families, waiting periods range from as little as 5 trading days for FTSE Russell and CRSP, to 10 days for MSCI and 365 days for S&P. Source: Morningstar, Nasdaq and Bloomberg Finance LP.
As a result, passive investment demand would likely emerge gradually rather than arriving on the first day of trading. Initial demand would primarily come from active managers, hedge funds, and IPO-focused investors. Over time, broader market indexes could begin adding the shares, followed by potential inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 and, eventually, the S&P 500 once all eligibility requirements have been satisfied. For investors, this matters because many index funds only buy a stock after it is added to an index. As a result, a large wave of buying can occur months or even years after the IPO, potentially supporting the stock price.
Figure 4 highlights another important distinction between a company's headline valuation and the amount of stock that is actually available for public investors to buy. At the end of the second quarter of 2026, the S&P 500 represented approximately $67.2 trillion in market capitalization [14], with the 10 largest companies representing about 36.5% of the index's total value. Against that backdrop, the combined private market valuations of OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and Stripe would equal roughly 3.2% of the S&P 500. Yet if only 10% of each company's shares were publicly tradable at listing, their combined float-adjusted weight would be just 0.32%. Including Anthropic's projected post-IPO valuation increases the group's combined market value to approximately 4.8% of the index, while their aggregate float-adjusted weight at a 10% float would remain only about 0.48% (see Figure 4). In other words, the economic size of these companies and the amount of stock available to investors can be vastly different.
The chart shows how much smaller the investable impact is than the headline valuation suggests. While the four firms represent 3.2% of the S&P 500's market value today, rising to 4.8% in a $2 trillion Anthropic E* scenario, their influence falls to just 0.32% and 0.48%, respectively, when adjusted for a 10% public float. This compares with the top 10 S&P 500 constituents, which already account for 36.5% of the index. Source: Seeking Alpha, Anthropic, OpenAI, Databricks and Stripe.
This distinction becomes especially important for passive funds. Unlike active managers, index funds cannot decide whether a stock appears overvalued or undervalued. Their mandate is simply to replicate the benchmark as closely as possible. If a company is added to a major index, funds seeking to replicate that benchmark would generally need to establish exposure to the new constituent, irrespective of their assessment of its valuation. To finance those purchases, they may need to trim existing holdings, creating a rebalancing effect across the broader market.
Consider a hypothetical example in which OpenAI joins a major index at a $1 trillion valuation. If the company receives a meaningful index weight, passive funds tracking that benchmark would collectively need to buy billions of dollars worth of OpenAI shares. Because those funds operate within fixed portfolios, they would fund those purchases by reducing positions in existing constituents, including Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, and hundreds of smaller companies. These trading flows would not be driven by changing views on those businesses. Instead, they would result directly from the rules governing index construction.
The potential market impact becomes even more pronounced when public float is limited. A trillion-dollar company may sound enormous, but if only 10% of its shares are available for public trading, the actual pool of investable stock is far smaller. If multiple index providers, ETFs, and institutional funds attempt to acquire shares from that limited supply simultaneously, demand could temporarily outpace available stock, increasing trading volumes and potentially amplifying price movements. As additional shares become available through lockup expirations and secondary offerings, the company's float-adjusted weight would gradually increase, potentially triggering further rounds of buying by passive funds. For that reason, investors should focus not only on the headline valuations of potential IPO candidates but also on their float structure, index eligibility timelines, and eventual index weights.
The study intentionally assumes a 10% public float to illustrate a scenario in which newly listed companies seek to balance capital formation with market stability. A limited float may help reduce the risk of oversupply following the IPO, support more orderly price discovery, and maintain scarcity in the tradable share base as institutional and passive investment demand develops over time. The real market impact may occur not on the first day of trading, but during the months and years that follow as these companies are progressively absorbed into the infrastructure of passive investing.
Assessing the Liquidity Impact of Large-Scale IPOs
A concentrated series of mega-IPOs could trigger meaningful capital reallocation across asset classes and, under certain conditions, create temporary liquidity pressures as investor funds are directed toward a small number of exceptionally large offerings. If OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and Stripe came to market within a relatively short period, investors seeking allocations might need to raise cash by reducing existing positions, drawing down reserves, deferring other investments, or using financing. Liquidity would not disappear from the financial system, but some of it could be redirected into the new listings. A hypothetical sale equal to 10% of the four companies’ combined current private market valuations would require investors to absorb approximately $217 billion of stock. Under an alternative scenario in which Anthropic reaches a $2 trillion valuation, the aggregate 10% equity sale would rise to approximately $320 billion. Investors are unlikely to hold such amounts entirely in idle cash, leaving smaller technology companies, recent IPOs, unprofitable growth stocks, semiconductor and cloud-computing beneficiaries, private secondary positions, convertible securities, and digital assets potentially exposed to capital reallocation.
These assets would not necessarily face selling pressure because their fundamentals had deteriorated. Investors might simply reduce their exposure to make room for what they consider more attractive or strategically important IPO opportunities. This is the basis of the so-called liquidity squeeze or liquidity tax. The term does not refer to an actual tax or the permanent destruction of capital. Rather, it describes the pressure that other assets may experience when a few major offerings absorb a disproportionate share of available cash and attention. The affected investments could receive fewer inflows, experience weaker trading demand, or face valuation pressure even when their underlying businesses remain unchanged. The effects could also extend to companies attempting to raise capital during the same period. Smaller issuers might struggle to compete for investor attention, prompting some to delay their offerings, lower valuation expectations, reduce transaction sizes, or accept greater dilution. Recent IPOs and speculative growth companies could be particularly vulnerable if investors reserve capital for larger and more prominent technology platforms.
Let us examine the capital movements around Alibaba’s 2014 IPO [15] to understand how a mega-listing can coincide with broader market outflows. Alibaba’s base offering required investors to absorb $21.77 billion of stock, of which approximately $8.27 billion went to the company and $13.24 billion to selling shareholders after underwriting commissions. During September 2014, fixed income mutual funds recorded $7.2 billion of outflows, while sector equity ETFs and alternative ETFs lost a combined $0.5 billion, bringing the observed outflows to $7.7 billion, or roughly 35% of the offering (see Figure 5). The source of the remaining $14.07 billion cannot be traced through these broad categories. Applied to the four companies examined in this article, a hypothetical 10% equity sale would require investors to absorb approximately $217 billion at current private market valuations, rising to $320 billion if Anthropic reaches a $2 trillion valuation, equivalent to about 10 and 15 times Alibaba’s base offering, respectively. Even partial funding through portfolio sales could therefore generate much larger capital movements across risk assets. However, the Alibaba outflows cannot entirely be directly attributed to the IPO, particularly because September 2014 also recorded $23.7 billion of inflows into money market funds and $17.5 billion into equity ETFs. The figures illustrate concurrent capital reallocation, not proven transfers into Alibaba shares.
Alibaba’s $21.77 billion base IPO coincided with $7.7 billion of observed outflows, equal to roughly 35% of the offering, while the remaining $14.07 billion was not traceable through the selected fund-flow categories. Of the IPO proceeds, $8.27 billion went to Alibaba and $13.24 billion to selling shareholders, although the concurrent outflows cannot be proven to have directly funded the offering. *Alibaba’s U.S.-traded American Depositary Shares (ADSs). Source: Alibaba final prospectus (SEC, September 18, 2014) and Lipper/Refinitiv September 2014 US fund flows summary.
The more plausible risk, however, is not one simultaneous $217 billion or $320 billion transaction. Such an offering would be operationally difficult and highly unlikely. The greater concern is a crowded sequence of IPOs, follow-on offerings, convertible financings, secondary share sales, and lock-up expirations spread across several months. These recurring capital demands could require institutions to replenish cash allocations and rebalance portfolios multiple times. The severity of the squeeze would depend on the size and timing of the transactions, prevailing market conditions, institutional cash balances, overseas participation, financing availability, and new capital entering the market. Strong inflows could help absorb the offerings with limited disruption. In a weaker environment, the same calendar could place greater pressure on smaller issuers and more speculative investments. The outcome would not necessarily be a broad or lasting market decline. It would be better understood as a period of intensified competition for capital, during which mega-listings could temporarily reduce the funding available to other companies and risk assets.
Converting Unicorn Valuations into Investable Capital
The private market liquidity problem persists even as startup valuations have recovered. According to NVCA [16], 859 U.S. unicorns were collectively valued at about $4.34 trillion, yet only 30 to 40 unicorns exited in 2025. Venture-backed exits totaled $217.1 billion, but cash distributions to investors remained well below the vast amount of value still locked in private markets. IPOs from OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and Stripe could help unlock a portion of that backlog by converting private valuations into publicly tradable shares. Once lock-up periods expire, venture funds could distribute shares directly to investors or sell them and return cash proceeds.
Figure 6 illustrates how liquidity from a major IPO cycle could flow through the venture ecosystem. Using the companies' current private market valuations, a hypothetical 10% combined offering would amount to roughly $217 billion of stock, split evenly between primary and secondary shares. Under the more bullish scenario in which Anthropic reaches a $2 trillion valuation, the same 10% offering would rise to approximately $320 billion. Assuming 75% of secondary sale proceeds remain after taxes and transaction costs, and half of those proceeds are ultimately recommitted to venture funds, the recycling effect could range from about $41 billion under current valuations to roughly $60 billion under the higher-valuation scenario. The process follows a classic venture capital flywheel [17]: IPO or secondary sale → cash returned to investors → new venture-fund commitments → investment in the next generation of startups. While the assumptions are illustrative rather than predictive, the analysis highlights how a wave of large exits could help convert private market wealth into fresh funding for future innovation. The benefits would likely be uneven. Large venture firms and crossover investors with direct stakes in these companies would receive most of the initial liquidity, while smaller funds without exposure could continue to face fundraising challenges. How quickly this cycle develops will depend on factors such as lock-up periods, taxes, fund distribution policies, and whether investors choose to reinvest their proceeds.
At current valuations, a hypothetical 10% offering by OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and Stripe could generate about $217 billion of stock issuance, with roughly $41 billion potentially recycled back into venture capital under the assumptions used. The same 10% offering under the Anthropic E* $3.2T scenario would rise to approximately $320 billion, increasing potential venture capital reinvestment to about $60 billion. Source: Anthropic, OpenAI, Databricks and Stripe.
Conclusion: Valuation, Liquidity, and Market Reset
Anthropic’s reported IPO ambitions, alongside expectations surrounding OpenAI, point to a new phase in which exceptionally large private technology companies could begin testing public market capacity. Databricks and Stripe are included in this analysis only as comparative examples of highly valued private technology firms. Neither company is assumed to be preparing for a public listing. Together, the four companies provide a useful framework for estimating the scale of capital that businesses of this size could require if substantial equity stakes were made available to public investors. At their latest private market valuations, a hypothetical 10% combined equity sale would represent approximately $217 billion, rising to around $320 billion in the scenario in which Anthropic reaches a $2 trillion valuation. The analysis shows that headline valuation alone would not determine the market impact. Public float, offering size, lock-up periods, index eligibility, investor demand, and transaction timing would shape how the capital is absorbed. A limited initial float could moderate the companies’ immediate index weight, but later index inclusion, secondary offerings, and lock-up expirations could generate additional demand over time. If several transactions of comparable scale occurred within a crowded period, investors might need to rebalance existing portfolios, potentially creating temporary funding pressure for smaller issuers and other risk assets. This would represent capital reallocation rather than the disappearance of market liquidity.
Large equity sales could also help address the venture industry’s long-running liquidity backlog. Under the article’s illustrative assumptions, approximately $41 billion could eventually be recommitted to venture funds based on current valuations, increasing to roughly $60 billion under the higher Anthropic valuation scenario. The resulting cycle could move capital from an IPO or secondary sale to investor distributions, new venture-fund commitments, and ultimately investment in the next generation of startups. The benefits, however, would likely remain concentrated among funds with direct ownership positions, while smaller venture managers could continue to face fundraising pressure. The central issue is therefore not whether all four companies will go public. It is what happens when companies of this scale begin crossing from private ownership into public markets. Anthropic and OpenAI provide the immediate context, while Databricks and Stripe demonstrate how much additional private market value exists among leading technology companies. Whether through IPOs, secondary sales, tender offers, or future capital events, the gradual release of this value could influence valuations, redirect investor capital, reshape index composition, and recycle liquidity across the venture ecosystem. The next market reset may not arrive through one blockbuster transaction, but through the cumulative impact of private market giants becoming increasingly accessible to a broader investor base.
[1] Why most IPOs are not worth the hype (The Economist)
[2] For a deeper dive into the world's largest IPO, read our blog, "June IPO Poised to Propel SpaceX Into a Trillion-Dollar-Plus Orbit."
[3] Anthropic Could Aim to Raise $100 Billion in Blockbuster I.P.O. (The New York Times)
[4] Anthropic investors bet on $2tn valuation in record IPO (Financial Times)
[5] OpenAI upheaval mounts as Sam Altman readies IPO push (Financial Times)
[6] Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation (Anthropic)
[7] OpenAI raises $122 billion to accelerate the next phase of AI (OpenAI)
[8] Databricks Grows >80% YoY, Surpasses $7B Revenue Run-Rate, Scales Lakebase, Genie, and Unity AI Gateway (Databricks)
[9] Stripe publishes 2025 annual letter and announces tender offer to provide liquidity to current and former employees (Stripe)
[10] Anthropic's Annualized Revenue Surpasses $65 Billion Before IPO (Bloomberg Finance LP)
[11] OpenAI's Revenue Run Rate Tops $40 Billion Ahead of IPO (Bloomberg Finance LP)
[12] Databricks Raises $5 Billion at a $190 Billion Valuation (Bloomberg Finance LP)
[13] Nasdaq Speeds Up Index Entry for SpaceX, Large IPOs With New Rule (Bloomberg Finance LP)
[14] Total Market Value of the U.S. Stock Market (Siblis Research)
[15] Alibaba Group Announces Exercise of Underwriters' Option to Purchase Additional ADSs (Alibaba)
[16] NVCA Releases 2026 Yearbook: Charts a Venture Industry in Transition (National Venture Capital Associations)
[17] Flywheel: A self-reinforcing cycle in which liquidity from exits is returned to investors, reinvested into new venture funds, and ultimately used to finance the next generation of startups.
