Photo: Serge Nussbaumer © Maverix Securities
By Serge Nussbaumer, Head of Public Solutions & Marketing at Maverix Securities
There are periods when capital seems scarcer. And there are periods when certain companies give the impression that money is not a finite resource, but simply another variable that can be multiplied at will through sufficient growth, vision and geopolitical relevance.
SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI currently belong to that second category.
SpaceX plans to raise up to $75 billion in its initial public offering and is targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation. OpenAI announced a $110 billion funding round in February, at a valuation of about $840 billion at the time. Anthropic raised $65 billion at the end of May and was valued at $965 billion.
The natural question is this: can these companies really raise as much capital as they want?
The answer is no. But the ceiling is markedly higher than many investors were still imagining at the end of 2025.
SpaceX is the clearest example. The company set the IPO price at $135 per share before its roadshow had even begun. Trading is expected to start on June 12. Up to 30% of the offering could be allocated to retail investors, while the free float, measured against the target total valuation, remains relatively small.
This is not just a financing round. It is also a demonstration of pricing power.
SpaceX is selling less than 5% of the company while bringing together several sources of demand: institutional investors, wealthy private investors, potential index buyers, and investors who want exposure not only to a space company, but also to Starlink, rocket launches, xAI and longer-term ambitions such as orbital data centres.
Demand is equally extraordinary at OpenAI and Anthropic. Nearly two-thirds of global venture capital was invested in artificial intelligence in 2025. That capital has increasingly concentrated on a small number of leading providers, for which investors are competing for access rather than negotiating traditional valuation multiples.
Investor demand is therefore not unlimited. It is highly concentrated.
That distinction matters. There is no infinite capital for AI start-ups or space companies. But there is an exceptional amount of capital for a handful of firms that investors believe can control strategic infrastructure, technology standards or new platform markets.
Normally, high capital requirements are seen as a weakness. At SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI, however, they are increasingly being interpreted as a barrier to entry.
According to reports, OpenAI is planning computing expenditures of around $600 billion by 2030. As of 2025, the company was expected to spend about $115 billion in cash by 2029.
Anthropic and OpenAI need capital not only for research and product development. They also need access to chips, energy, data centres and long-term infrastructure contracts. According to Reuters, OpenAI could still need more than $200 billion by 2030, despite its latest funding round.
These numbers change the logic of the market. Those without access to such sums may no longer be able to seriously join the race for frontier models. Financing itself is thus becoming an economic moat.
That also explains why strategic investors are willing to commit colossal amounts. Amazon, Nvidia, SoftBank, Microsoft and other backers are not merely buying financial stakes. They are also securing demand for cloud capacity, chips, platforms and ecosystems. At OpenAI, Amazon, Nvidia and SoftBank together accounted for $110 billion of the February funding round.
These capital flows cannot, however, be fully equated with independent market demand. Part of the funding is strategic, another part serves to finance existing infrastructure investments, and yet another portion flows back indirectly to the investors themselves.
No, they have simply moved from the headlines to the footnotes.
As early as the end of 2025, investors were warning of a valuation bubble in AI companies. In the first quarter of 2025, AI start-ups had already raised $73.1 billion, accounting for 57.9% of all global venture capital.
Since then, valuations have continued to rise. At the same time, underlying risks have become more visible.
Although OpenAI surpassed an annualised revenue run rate of $20 billion in 2025, the company reportedly missed several revenue and user targets in early 2026. Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar is said to have voiced internal concerns about the company’s ability to honour future contracts if revenue growth does not accelerate sufficiently.
Anthropic is also growing at an extremely rapid pace. The company reported revenue of $4.8 billion for the first quarter of 2026 and is forecasting $10.9 billion for the second quarter. However, the figures are difficult to compare: Anthropic reports part of its revenue on a gross basis, while OpenAI discloses revenue net of partner shares. In addition, usage-based revenue can fluctuate sharply.
SpaceX is not immune to valuation questions either. The company generated revenue of $18.67 billion in 2025, but posted a net loss of $4.94 billion. In the first quarter of 2026, only the Connectivity segment, driven by Starlink, was profitable.
Morningstar values SpaceX at about $780 billion — less than half the valuation targeted for the IPO. That gap shows how heavily the current price depends on future business lines that are not yet sufficiently proven today.
Valuation concerns therefore remain. The market has simply decided not to treat them, for now, as an obstacle to funding.
SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI cannot raise capital indefinitely. But they are currently operating in a market where investors are willing to accept exceptional risks, because they believe the cost of not investing is even higher.
That does not mean valuation discipline has been abolished. It means the logic of valuation is shifting — away from current profits, and toward potential control of future infrastructure, platforms and technology standards.
The main danger for investors is therefore not that these companies will no longer be able to obtain capital. The greater danger is that the abundance of available capital will mask operational weaknesses for longer than objective fundamental analysis would justify.
The market has not yet answered the valuation question. It has merely deferred it.
Find all our Strategic Case articles
