Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 345 posts

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#61

Post by XorNot »

vessenes wrote: post #22
winfredJa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the real reason. I don't think equity market has enough capital to support three companies of this size.

SpaceX IPO is slated to be $75-80bn — the market has size for that. We also have seen robust options and finance markets for AAPL and NVDA over the last years that make the broader ecosystem not overly worrying in my armchair opinion. I’m not clear how much crossover demand there is between SX and Anthropic/oAI — that seems like the more interesting question. I’m guessing if we had Anthropic/oAI launching at the same…

None of these companies are worth the numbers being tossed around, but SpaceX especially so.

Its Schrodinger's IPO: the space business is so successful how could you question the company's worth? You can't afford to miss out on the next biggest AI business to invest in!

What's going to happen is the music will stop and it's just a question of who cashed in when it does. OpenAI are easily the most vulnerable here.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#62

Post by farrellm23 »

rfgplk wrote: post #49

Companies IPOing should be forced to put up their estimated market cap as collateral in cash. Oh what is that? You don't have $1 trillion in cash to put up? Cool, you're not a $1 trillion dollar company then.

This makes no sense: the whole point is to raise capital. The valuation is never just the current value of the assets; it’s based on the expected future cash flows. A good example is in biotech, some researcher developed a treatment and wants to develop a product. They have valuable IP but zero money. So they IPO to raise capital to bring the treatment to market. The investors expect that in the future, they will get dividends or a buyout.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#65

Post by lokar »

philipallstar wrote: post #24
shimman wrote: post #15

Growing worry I have are the dozens of newly minted corporate elites that will continue to wreck havoc on the tech industry mandating their golden paths while America still lacks medicare for all, college for all, and universal childcare. If you think Sam Altman is bad for the industry, imagine what 200 of him will be like!

We had universal childcare until we converted single-income families into dual-income families in order to make the boomers who they bought houses from rich.

And to give women full agency over their own lives

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#66

Post by Eji1700 »

krona wrote: post #27
ai_critic wrote: post #10

> We have not decided on timing yet; it may be a while because there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company. Presumably those things were harder as a charity/non-profit.

They need to financially engineer a good looking quarter beforehand. Perhaps Larry Ellison can cut them a nice quid pro quo for a few months to make OpenAI look profitable (like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal), although that's probably unlikely given the debt Oracle is taking on to build it's infra.

> They need to financially engineer a good looking quarter beforehand.

Eh given the quality of recent IPO proposals I think they can just say there's a couple zillion air molecules to turn into gold and be done with it.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#67

Post by super256 »

alpinisme wrote: post #46
ghshephard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/how-openai-board-is-structu... for the OpenAI Structure. 1) In order to fund research - this stuff costs 10s of billions of dollars - everyone, from Ilya, to Elon, to Sam - all agreed that they would require a profit-arm to raise money. Nobody was going to sponsor that 10s of billions of dollars to a non-profit. 2) The non profit is still there - and controls the commercial eleme…

“Controls” That will be especially untrue after IPO when shareholders can claim there are fiduciary responsibilities that conflict with the non profit goals.

The non profit is a big shareholder of the commercial subsidiary

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#68

Post by 0xWTF »

philipallstar wrote: post #24
shimman wrote: post #15

Growing worry I have are the dozens of newly minted corporate elites that will continue to wreck havoc on the tech industry mandating their golden paths while America still lacks medicare for all, college for all, and universal childcare. If you think Sam Altman is bad for the industry, imagine what 200 of him will be like!

We had universal childcare until we converted single-income families into dual-income families in order to make the boomers who they bought houses from rich.

Women want their own income stream because of the innumerable ways men get into trouble. If her man gets into trouble, she wants a plan B, for her and her children. I don't think anyone was thinking about how that would prop up the housing market 30 years later.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#69

Post by philipallstar »

lokar wrote: post #65
philipallstar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had universal childcare until we converted single-income families into dual-income families in order to make the boomers who they bought houses from rich.

And to give women full agency over their own lives

No one has full agency over their life. The men who generally work harder, longer, and for more of their lives, that are shorter as a result, don't have fully agency. Having a boss isn't agency.
Post reply on HN