126 points petethomas 2 hours ago 57 comments

mosesman 1 hour ago | parent

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/2d0b4d...

9 shares left

please comment if you have used it to ensure other people know if it could be read

and its limited - only click if you are interested

enjoy!

neutronicus 1 hour ago | parent

> Wall Street banks earlier this week closed the North Star deal, which provides the financing for Anthropic to lease 1.5 gigawatts of Google’s semiconductors.

This line is certainly eyebrow-raising to the educated layman.

Apparently it means that anthropic is leasing a Google data center whose constituent servers draw 1.5 GW of power running representative workloads.

joe_the_user 1 hour ago | parent

It's interesting you imagine nine shares would suffice for a large site like HN. No, the link doesn't work for me. Honestly, this kind of "sharing" seems a bit disingenuous at this point.

hoppp 1 hour ago | parent

Yeah, 9 shares and then 10k people click

daviTeodoro 1 hour ago | parent

He is the article: Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Blackstone told investors Anthropic may not receive an investment-grade rating immediately after going public, a reversal from its previous guidance that would complicate the AI lab’s ability to finance its massive spending.

The private capital giant told investors in Anthropic’s latest $63bn chip financing deal that the start-up is expected to receive a “high” junk rating from major credit rating agencies after its initial public offering, according to people familiar with the matter.

Blackstone is acting as an anchor investor on the deal, known as “Project North Star”, and is working with banks that stumped up financing on selling the debt on to other investors.

Anthropic filed to go public on Monday, setting up what could be the largest listing of all time next month. The AI lab’s prospectus sketched out its “bold but sane” plans to spend more than $800bn on computing infrastructure between now and 2045.

An investment-grade credit rating is central to those ambitions, enabling Anthropic to borrow at lower rates to finance its AI infrastructure projects. The group has cash and equivalents of more than $112bn, and investors anticipate it could raise about $100bn more in the IPO. Sign reading "Blackstone" outside the Blackstone headquarters in New York, with pedestrians and city lights reflected in the glass. Blackstone’s funds have invested in $9bn of the junior debt at a lucrative yield of more than 10% © Angus Mordant/Bloomberg

While Blackstone had told its investment partners in recent months that it was expecting an investment-grade rating for Anthropic before year-end, it has recently signalled that a rating in the double B range or above is more likely given the guidance it has received from major credit agencies, the people said.

Such a designation would limit the pool of capital that Anthropic could tap because many insurance and pension funds are restricted from taking large positions in junk-rated borrowers. As a result, the company might need to continue to rely on its suppliers with high credit ratings to support its debt-raising efforts.

US tech stocks slid to session lows on Friday following the FT’s report on Anthropic’s rating, with the Nasdaq 100 down 3.7 per cent in afternoon trading. Markets were sharply lower prior to the report after earnings from Amazon and Intel worsened fears about the sustainability of the AI boom.

“It’s all about access to credit, it really matters . . . if [Anthropic] isn’t investment grade, the cost of credit goes higher, that’s not good for anyone,” said a US tech-focused portfolio manager.

“It’s a bloodbath out there,” they added, referring to the sell-off in stocks.

Wall Street banks earlier this week closed the North Star deal, which provides the financing for Anthropic to lease 1.5 gigawatts of Google’s semiconductors. More than $42bn of the senior loans is guaranteed by Broadcom, which co-develops the chips and has an investment-grade rating, while $18bn of the junior debt is backed by the AI start-up’s lease payments.

Institutional investors covet senior debt because it takes priority over junior loans in the case of a default. Broadcom’s high A-tier credit rating was an important factor in allowing Anthropic to secure the financing.

Blackstone’s funds invested in $9bn of the junior debt at a lucrative yield of more than 10 per cent, the FT previously reported. Bankers for Anthropic and rival OpenAI have also lobbied the largest rating agencies to grant the AI labs investment-grade ratings after their IPOs.

Project North Star’s $18bn junior debt, which exposes lenders more acutely to Anthropic’s credit risk, has been assigned a double B plus rating with positive outlook from Kroll Bond Rating Agency, a slight improvement from stable outlook in a similar deal known as Project “Big Sky” four months ago. It also received a double B rating from Morningstar DBRS, the people added.

The big three credit agencies — Fitch, Moody’s and S&P — which have bigger influence on companies’ borrowing costs, have not officially issued any credit ratings for Anthropic.

Anthropic, Blackstone, KBRA, Morningstar DBRS and S&P declined to comment. Fitch and Moody’s did not respond to requests for comment.

jacquesm 1 hour ago | parent

"bold but sane" -> that sounds as if Claude wrote their prospectus?

_HMCB_ 1 hour ago | parent

What could go wrong?

cmiles8 49 minutes ago | parent

Is this a surprise?

By any sane normal sense of business and financials these AI labs look terrible on paper.

Any loan would be speculative at best, and the rating would simply reflect that.

Investing in these companies is like going wild at the casino. Sure you might make a fortune but strong odds are you’re gonna lose your shirt.

ActionHank 17 minutes ago | parent

I’ve discussed with many people at work, all engineers, they’re weirdly oblivious. Most are shocked when I say things like OpenAI and Anthropic are gonna crater.

rvz 45 minutes ago | parent

Many companies IPO'd in the late 1990s and did not exist 10 years later.

Let's say that the house of cards crashes down and takes the market with it who will shutdown, survive or have no choice but to get acquired for a 90% discount.

Some will be just alive long enough for the early investors to pull out enough before the market crashes.

jonas21 36 minutes ago | parent

And who will be the Amazon and grow 2500x over the next 30 years?

Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen -- but if you take analogies from the dot-com era and assume they're going to play out in the same way, you can't just cherry-pick the bad ones.

muvlon 32 minutes ago | parent

You can cherry pick the bad ones if the point you want to make is that it's risky. Nobody is saying Anthropic is definitely going to 0, just that there is a risk.

542458 15 minutes ago | parent

But from an economics perspective OAI/Antropic are more similar to Amazon than to Pets.com. Pets.com always had a heavily negative COGS - they were in the business of selling $20 bills for $15. On the flip side, Anthropic appears to be positive on COGS, and OAI could get positive by cutting limits on free and $20 plans. OAI/Anthropic are negative on the books mostly because of massive R&D expenses. This compares well to Amazon circa 1999, which was positive on COGS but negative overall due to massive buildout R&D costs.

Note that I'm not saying OAI/Anthropic are destined for success - because the rate of change combined with competition with cheap Chinese models is pretty novel in the business case history. But I am saying that pessimistic dot-com-boom comparisons don't seem to be all that deep.

yieldcrv 30 minutes ago | parent

A) they’re all getting acquired by these IPO seeking ones

B) nobody is IPOing at $400 million like Amazon did except SPAC share dilution scams, that you have to be willing to pick up at $30 million a year later

C) private secondary markets are solve that, for some and are pretty great

D) tokenized synthetic and SPV backed private secondary markets in crypto ecosystems like Hyperliquid give you that exposure too, so now everyone can replicate the 90s

steveBK123 20 minutes ago | parent

> B) nobody is IPOing at $400 million like Amazon did

Exactly You can't wait to IPO until you're already one of the 10 biggest companies ever AND also grow 2500x post-IPO.

Retail is now exit liquidity for Big VC.

georgemcbay 29 minutes ago | parent

> And who will be the Amazon and grow 2500x over the next 30 years?

Almost certainly nobody if you're tracking post-IPO growth.

And not because there won't be survivors/winners when the next crash comes (there probably will be) but because of the market changes (in the wake of legislation like the JOBS act) that result in these companies having their significant growth periods prior to IPO instead of after it.

IPOs used to be a launch pad to growth, now they are just a way for private investors to finally cash out when the company is already close to peak valuation.

steveBK123 20 minutes ago | parent

None of the current vintage of IPOs are going to 2500x in our lifetimes (inflation adjusted at least..). The VC to IPO process is totally different now.

Companies are staying private longer, raising many orders of magnitude more private funding, and IPOing straight into "top 10 biggest companies in history" size.

If you IPO at $1.5T you are already equivalent to ~1.5% of World GDP.

Thus is just for scale, as comparing GDP vs a company market cap doesn't make total sense since GDP is 1 year economic activity and market caps represent discounted future cashflows of future economic activity...

Let's say Anthropic IPOs at $1.5T and grows even 1000x over 20 years, it would be worth $1.5P (petabillion?). If it had a 20x earnings multiple like google this would imply Net Income of $75T. Mag7 total Net Income for 2025 was $500B or $0.5B.

World GDP is $125T, and has grown less than 5%/year before/thru/after DotCom. So lets say in 20 years its $250B and Anthropic is capturing 30% of world GDP in earnings (not revenue, that would be even higher)!!

So the math doesn't math.

zirkonit 8 minutes ago | parent

Amazon had valuation of $60M at their first venture round, and it took them 19 years to 3500x it to $200B.

Anthropic had valuation of $550M at their first venture round, and assuming it IPOs at roughly $2T, it will take them 5 years to give this 3500x return to their initial investors.

SatvikBeri 8 minutes ago | parent

For comparison, Amazon had a valuation of $500 million at IPO, roughly 4,000x less than Anthropic.

paxy 7 minutes ago | parent

Not really comparable. An IPO in the 90s is equivalent to a Series C or Series D round today.

dofm 43 minutes ago | parent

That this is only "may not" is the shocker.

luke5441 31 minutes ago | parent

Same thing as with SpaceX. If there is that much of an equity buffer, it should be investment grade. That it isn't means that the bond market doesn't trust the valuations at all.

echelon 37 minutes ago | parent

Anthropic won't let people make video games. They are on the wrong side of history.

They are so going to get disrupted. Chinese open weights models will have no such limitations, and there's no way we'll let Anthropic outlaw or ban them. (And even if they did, they can't police the whole world.)

There is no moat. Anthropic should be playing nice, not trying to create a god while holding engineers under their thumb. We will route around it.

drivebyhooting 25 minutes ago | parent

I hope so. I would never bow down to such a god.

echelon 10 minutes ago | parent

We demand a second amendment right to access god in a first class manner.

If the people can't access god, then we are living under a dictatorship with aims to enslave us.

isolay 36 minutes ago | parent

I’ve already stashed the popcorn.

petcat 32 minutes ago | parent

Anthropic is in the worst position of the AI labs. As far as investors and "the market" are concerned, the only AI that matters is the one built into your phone, car, your TV, your smart home and appliances. Anthropic has none of that share. It's all Google, Apple, and OpenAI powering Siri.

alpha_squared 31 minutes ago | parent

Wouldn't OpenAI be in the same boat? As far as I'm aware, they don't control any means of distribution either.

petcat 23 minutes ago | parent

OpenAI models power Apple's Siri assistant

Marsymars 20 minutes ago | parent

They don't?

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/09/siri-ai-a-profoundly-...

> These new capabilities are powered by the next generation of Apple Foundation Models, custom-built in collaboration with Google and its Gemini models for deeply integrated Apple Intelligence experiences.

paxy 16 minutes ago | parent

They powered the initial "Apple Intelligence". The newer version is Gemini.

ghuyyyyy 28 minutes ago | parent

Don’t agree with this

Personally I view it like this - did ant and OAI push the industry forward yup? Will they fail as businesses though? Yup. Why? Business economics - as long as cost efficient Chinese replica’s exist it’s fine. Unless the us govt artificially makes the frontier market large then I see no chance of a large enough market that sustains current valuations.

More intelligence alone != more progress. And more intelligence in the context of business != more productivity that shows up in financial performance.

Life is more nuanced.

cookingmyserver 17 minutes ago | parent

Personally, I don't think that tracks. If you are measuring "share" as share of vibes or "AI adoption" sure, but having AI in a phone, TV, smart home, etc doesn't make anyone any significant money. Hyperscaling isn't happening because there is an insatiable demand for retail AI usage. People are subscription'd out. A significant portion of people don't want AI in a lot of these things, another portion don't think they need it, and the ones that are eager to adopt it can use AI to bootstrap AI tools they use through a token router. You will have some revenue from retail AI but that isn't surprising considering I quite often have to provide tech support to people to help them cancel their subscription to a calculator app they've been paying $20 a month for.

paxy 17 minutes ago | parent

No, the only AI that matters is one that large corporations are paying for. And that is Claude.

Varelion 28 minutes ago | parent

I'm so excited to see these companies crater.

hinkley 19 minutes ago | parent

An IPO is where the investors cash out to spend money on something else. It’s where the founders and early employees get rich enough to start chasing other interests, or just retire outright.

haliskerbas 12 minutes ago | parent

My understanding is that the underwriting bank and early investors and institutional investors win first, then founders, after that early employees. Usually offloaded onto the robinhood crowd who excitedly buys in.

tschellenbach 17 minutes ago | parent

That makes sense, anthropic is in a rapidly changing market. Revenue could crater if a better model is released by a competitor. AI demand could fall behind. Doesn't seem like that will happen, but its definitely not investment-grade debt worthy either.

ghuyyyyy 9 minutes ago | parent

Demand is currently not sustainable because they - ant and OAI - refuse to raise prices.

Infact they’re going to end up in price competition unless they field an army of ‘FDE’ who go to every large firm and reorganise the operations around their models and displace labour.

apercu 14 minutes ago | parent

Shocking. /s

empath75 14 minutes ago | parent

"Risky" doesn't mean "bad investment". All the AI companies are high risk, high reward plays, and their interest rates will reflect that.