SA Asks: Should Google's AI leadership changes concern investors?
Source link
Many have commented on the recent reforms to the Venezuelan Hydrocarbons regime and its reach. Most people have focused on the irony of Delcy Rodríguez giving away the country’s resources after years of empty anti-US rhetoric and, of course, it is ridiculously tempting to do so. But the long-term questions beyond the political posturing of the US robbing Venezuelan oil linger: is the reform good for Venezuela? Was the previous regime really favorable to the country’s interest? Why has the reaction by major oil companies been rather slow or lukewarm, as the WSJ reported a month ago?
The debate over the adequacy of Venezuelan oil regulations predates January 3. A statist vision has prevailed among political elites for almost half a century. Contrary to the chavista narrative, the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized by Carlos Andrés Pérez fifty years ago. Up until the 1990s, the State, through PDVSA, performed exclusively primary oil activities: exploration and production. Then, due to the sharp drop in oil prices, the cash-strapped Rafael Caldera government, using a provision of the 1975 nationalization law, had to allow for private investment in primary activities through service agreements with foreign oil companies. These contracts were branded as the Apertura Petrolera, which became a bête noire for the Venezuelan Left, who even tried to stop the process via the Supreme Court.
Chávez put an end to this with his 2001 Hydrocarbons Law reform, migrating from the service agreements to joint venture companies where the Venezuelan state was the main shareholder. The refusal of some companies, like Conoco and Exxon, to migrate to the joint ventures led to several of the arbitration claims against Venezuela. Another contentious aspect of the Venezuelan oil business was that only State-owned companies could directly export oil. Joint venture companies could only sell oil to another PDVSA subsidiary, which led to PDVSA running up huge debts with foreign partners.
The Chávez 2001 model ruled until recently. Only PDVSA directly, or the JVs where PDVSA was a majority shareholder, could perform exploration and production activities and export oil.
The Executive also retained very discretionary power over what is called the government take (the percentage of oil or profits taken as a consideration in agreements with foreign partners in the joint ventures and applicable taxes), which can be used by the government to drive down the profits of its private company partners, a major deterrent for private investment in oil.
Up until very recently, the Chávez 2001 model was ruling: only PDVSA directly, or the joint ventures where PDVSA was a majority shareholder, could perform exploration and production activities and sell oil in international markets.
A similar regime was implemented in Colombia. In 2003, that country reformed its hydrocarbon regime to its current iteration, where it removed the exclusive primary activities rights granted to Ecopetrol, and established that this State-owned company would compete with private companies for exploration through contracts granted by a newly minted hydrocarbons regulator, the ANH. The ANH grants exploration rights under competitive bids where Ecopetrol competes with private companies under the same conditions. The purpose was to simplify the existing bureaucracy and award contracts under competitive, transparent bids, instead of having an all-mighty State company that both drills and decides who drills under very discretionary powers, as is the current case with PDVSA.
This model was behind past reform proposals by the opposition and have been part of the expert discussion on oil reform in Venezuela, and it is also included in María Corina Machado’s oil sector proposal, which received hypocritical criticism from people who remained mum about Delcy’s sweeping reforms. This model is seen as a true break from the previous one, as it takes power away from omnipotent PDVSA and turns it into just another player who has to compete with private companies in competitive bidding before a national, impartial regulator.
The reforms do represent a momentous formal break with the statist oil policy that has prevailed in the country for over 50 years. Under the new Hydrocarbons Law, private companies can perform primary activities through contracts with PDVSA subsidiaries and joint venture companies, and can export oil directly to international markets, paying the government take. The law, enacted on January 29, 2026, also establishes that these contracts can include arbitration clauses, which can provide more certainty and guarantees for potential investors than submitting them to Venezuela’s infamously corrupt and dependent courts. The law also worryingly removes parliamentary oversight over the oil sector.
But the catch is that abiding by the law has never been chavismo’s strong suit, and they had been violating the Hydrocarbons Law since 2018. Under the aegis of the disgraced oil czar/soccer player Tarek el Aissami, PDVSA started signing contracts granting primary activities rights to private companies, as well as the right to directly export oil. This was done on dubious legal grounds under presidential emergency powers. Thus, the 2026 Hydrocarbons Law is only a regularization of a de facto situation that already existed.
The new regulations give a lot of discretionary power to the government to control the performance of the new contracts and to set the government’s take unilaterally.
As with everything in life, the devil is in the details, and the new law is very scant on the details of the new contracts, it seems to have been drafted in a rush. It defines very broadly the terms and conditions of the contracts (the new contracts pertaining to joint venture companies are only mentioned in passing) while at the same time giving the government wide discretionary powers to interpret them, and the last thing any international investor wants is to give chavismo discretionary powers over anything.
Delcy Rodríguez also enacted new regulations of the Hydrocarbons Law (which have not been updated since 1943) and two additional resolutions establishing some parameters for the government take. A centralized regulation of the government take is a welcome change, but the reaction to it has been mixed, as it gives a lot of discretionary power to the government to control the performance of the new contracts and to set the government’s take unilaterally.
The law also fails to incorporate any change to the current structure of the Venezuelan oil architecture. Unlike the reform in Colombia, the new law does not remove the elephantine, vastly discretionary bureaucracy that chavismo created. PDVSA remains the almighty administrator of Venezuelan oil with no independent technical supervision of its role.
So, are the reforms good? They do signify a break from the statist vision of the oil industry, one that does not correspond with the wretched state of the Venezuelan oil sector. However, it is obviously a patched-up, limited instrument enacted by Delcy’s multiuse minions more to appease Donald Trump (even the reaction from American oil companies has been lukewarm) than anything resembling a definitive vision for the Venezuelan oil industry in an era of decarbonization.
The most likely outcome, already playing out according to the WSJ piece, is that the major oil companies (already traumatized by the previous experiences with chavismo expropriation frenzy over 20 years ago) remain skeptical or limit its investment due to the lack of clear guarantees and conditions and smaller, less known and less risk-averse companies are the ones who end up signing these contracts for a short-term gain. Chevron, who is now the most powerful player in the Venezuelan oil business, publicly signaled that the law doesn’t go far enough for them, and, considering their leverage with the Trump administration, it is possible that the Rodríguez regime is forced to further liberalize and refine the text of the law. But under the current conditions of legal uncertainty and arbitrariness no company, whether big or small, will risk investing the vast amount of money needed (about 183 billion dollars) to recover the Venezuelan oil industry after decades of destruction and pillage. Oil companies may be evil, but never stupid.
All of these scenarios have a limited effect on the recovery of the Venezuelan oil industry without a democratic transition because for any law to have a meaningful impact on the economy you need actual rule of law and independent courts, and you also need actual experts drafting the new laws. Not the very few lackeys of the most incompetent government in our history who happen to be proficient in English.
alexsl/iStock via Getty Images
Emerging-market stocks stumbled in July as renewed geopolitical tensions, volatile AI-related shares and rising interest-rate concerns interrupted what had been a strong rally earlier this year, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.
For investors, the outlook for developing markets is becoming more complicated. While
This week FIFA announced plans to form a new subsidiary company to run part of the World Cup and offer a 20% stake to private investors, worth over $4B. Jared Kushner’s brother’s investment firm Thrive Eternal has been named a likely buyer. Al Jazeera’s Mohammad Saleh explains.
Published On 29 Jul 202629 Jul 2026
Share
Andy Burnham has officially begun his tenure as Britain’s prime minister with something few of his recent predecessors enjoyed: breathing room. After replacing Keir Starmer as Labour leader and becoming the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister in just a decade, Burnham inherits an economy burdened by weak growth, strained public services and persistent cost-of-living pressures. Yet, unlike the turbulent starts experienced by previous leaders, financial markets have greeted his arrival with surprising calm.
That early confidence may prove one of Burnham’s greatest assets—or one of his greatest tests.
Burnham enters Downing Street with a political identity distinct from his predecessor. During his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, he cultivated an image as a champion of regional development and public investment, earning the nickname “King of the North.”
Unlike Starmer’s cautious approach to fiscal management, Burnham has promised to “rewire Britain” through greater devolution, investment in public services, re-industrialisation and stronger local government.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Such promises normally raise concerns among investors wary of higher public spending. Yet markets have remained remarkably composed.
British government bond yields have stayed close to 5%, while sterling has strengthened against the euro since Burnham emerged as Labour’s preferred successor. Investors appear reassured by his commitment to maintaining Britain’s existing fiscal rules rather than pursuing aggressive borrowing.
Several factors explain why investors have not reacted negatively.
First, Burnham has avoided announcing sweeping fiscal changes during his first days in office. Instead, he has focused on politically popular issues such as healthcare, homelessness, defence and regional economic development.
Second, his appointment of former Defence Secretary John Healey as Chancellor suggests continuity rather than confrontation with financial markets.
More importantly, many economists believe economic policy will remain closely directed by Downing Street rather than being driven independently by the Treasury, reducing uncertainty over Britain’s fiscal direction.
This perception matters because markets today are extremely sensitive to fiscal credibility.
Any discussion of British economic policy inevitably returns to September 2022.
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss’s unfunded tax-cutting budget triggered one of the worst government bond sell-offs in modern British history. Pension funds came under severe pressure, forcing the Bank of England to intervene to stabilise markets.
That episode fundamentally changed how investors assess UK fiscal policy.
The International Monetary Fund recently concluded that the crisis permanently increased the risk premium investors demand for holding British government debt. In other words, markets now react far more aggressively to any sign of fiscal irresponsibility.
Burnham understands this reality.
His repeated commitment to existing borrowing rules appears designed to reassure investors that Labour will not repeat past mistakes.
Burnham also benefits from several favourable developments that could buy his government valuable time.
Inflation has moderated compared with previous years, reducing immediate pressure on the Bank of England to tighten monetary policy further.
Energy prices have also eased relative to their crisis peaks, while upcoming regulatory adjustments may further reduce household energy costs.
Another important advantage comes from the fiscal restraint maintained under former Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Her adherence to strict borrowing limits has substantially reduced planned government debt issuance this year, giving Burnham more flexibility to adjust spending priorities without immediately alarming financial markets.
In effect, Burnham inherits a stronger fiscal starting position than many expected.
Those advantages, however, are unlikely to last indefinitely.
Britain still faces sluggish productivity, weak investment, deteriorating public infrastructure and mounting demands for higher defence spending.
Burnham has also hinted at broader reforms that could eventually test investor confidence, including:
Each proposal carries fiscal implications.
Delivering meaningful improvements in living standards while maintaining market confidence will require careful balancing.
Politics may ultimately shape economic policy more than economics itself.
Although Labour has changed leaders, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK continues to perform strongly in opinion polls.
If Burnham adopts an overly cautious approach that fails to improve public services or living standards, Reform could continue gaining political momentum.
That creates a dilemma.
Markets generally favour fiscal discipline, but voters increasingly demand visible economic change.
Burnham must therefore find a middle ground: ambitious enough to convince voters Labour can improve daily life, yet disciplined enough to convince investors Britain’s finances remain under control.
Burnham’s premiership begins at a pivotal moment for Britain.
Economic growth remains weak, public confidence in government is fragile, and geopolitical uncertainty—from rising defence commitments to global trade disruptions—continues to weigh on the outlook.
Unlike many of his predecessors, Burnham enjoys a brief window of goodwill from financial markets. Whether he can convert that goodwill into lasting economic reform without unsettling investors may determine not only Labour’s electoral fortunes but also Britain’s broader economic trajectory.
The first major test will come with Burnham’s autumn budget.
Investors will closely examine whether his government maintains fiscal discipline while introducing the reforms needed to revive growth and address Britain’s long-standing structural problems.
Markets will also monitor whether Labour can improve economic conditions quickly enough to halt the rise of Reform UK. If opinion polls continue shifting toward Nigel Farage’s party, investors may begin pricing in greater political uncertainty, reviving memories of the volatility seen during the Liz Truss government.
For now, Burnham has been handed two valuable gifts: investor patience and fiscal breathing space. Whether those advantages become the foundation of a successful premiership or simply a temporary reprieve will depend on the difficult choices his government makes over the coming months.
With information from Reuters.
Netflix on Thursday reported higher revenues and profit in the second quarter as it sought to assure investors about its growth prospects.
The streaming giant reported revenue of $12.6 billion in the second quarter, up 13% from a year ago. Net income during the period rose 9% to $3.4 billion.
Netflix said it expects revenue to grow 12% in the third quarter, but lowered its 2026 revenue forecast to $51 billion from $51.4 billion.
The results were roughly in line with what analysts had predicted and were driven by recent price increase and growth in advertising revenue. The latter is expected to reach $3 billion this year, the company said.
In a presentation with analysts, Netflix executives touted global expansion plans.
“We’re entertaining an audience approaching a billion people with still lots of room to grow into our addressable market on every measure,” said Spencer Neumann, Netflix’s chief financial officer, in the earnings presentation. “We believe we’ve got lots and lots of runway for solid growth ahead of us.”
Those comments appeared intended to assuage investors who’ve grown concerned that people could be spending less time on the streaming service as rivals like YouTube gain market share.
Netflix’s share of TV viewing time in the U.S. has steadily declined in recent months as rivals have gained market share, according to Nielsen data.
The streamer represented 7.8% of all TV viewing in the U.S. in April — the lowest percentage since May 2025. It was 7.5% in April 2025, Nielsen said.
By comparison, YouTube has seen its share of the streaming audience grow. YouTube’s TV viewing share in April rose to 13.4%, up from 12.4% a year earlier, Nielsen said.
Some investors fear that if viewership is down, subscribers could cancel the service, which would negatively affect the platform’s growing advertising business. It could also undercut Netflix’s ability to raise prices in the U.S. and other countries.
Those worries have caused Netflix’s stock price to plummet 41% in the last year. The stock closed on Thursday at $74.35 a share, up 1%. In after hours trading, the stock fell 8%.
“The engagement elephant continues to rear its head and investors are on edge that an earlier price hike in a seasonally tough period and lighter content slate could have driven more churn than usual,” wrote Morgan Stanley Research analysts in a research note.
On Thursday, Netflix said in a letter to shareholders it has a sophisticated understanding of its consumers and “we know not all hours are equal” and that engagement on its platform is “healthy.”
“The entertainment industry remains dynamic and competitive,” Netflix told shareholders. “We aim to stay ahead by executing against our three areas of focus: delivering more entertainment value, leveraging technology to improve every aspect of our service, and improving monetization.”
The Los Gatos-based company said it plans to allocate more than 5% of its content spend on live programming this year. Live content has been a key driver for subscriptions, accounting for six of the top 10 new member sign-up days over the last five years, the company said.
In the first half of 2026, Netflix said members watched more than 97 billion hours, up 2% from a year ago. Among the most popular shows: the crime thriller “I Will Find You,” which had 87 million views; and the romantic comedy film “Voicemails for Isabelle,” which garnered 71 million views.
Netflix has been adding new types of content to its platform, including video podcasts to help increase engagement with subscribers during the day.
As part of the diversification efforts, the platform has expanded its portfolio of live programming over the years, including adding NFL games and streaming Major League Baseball’s opening day game.
In 2022, Netflix had also faced investor pressure when it reported declining subscribers for the first time in more than a decade. That pushed the company to delve into other areas including advertising, gaming and cracking down on password sharing.
SA Asks: What's the best bank stock right now for investors?
Source link
FabrikaCr
Investors turned to defensive stocks on Tuesday as a sell-off in the tech sector accelerated. The selling in stocks seen as AI beneficiaries led some investors to take shelter in consumer staples names. Household prodicts giant Procter & Gamble (
Published on
Wall Street’s most famous market label may be outdated.
The ‘Magnificent 7’ or ‘Mag 7’ defined the first phase of the AI rally, as it included Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Tesla, but a fresh grouping is now circulating among investors keen to capture its next leg.
In the wake of SpaceX’s blockbuster listing, analysts are looking to add Elon Musk’s company, as well as OpenAI and Anthropic, which are expected to IPO later this year, to a new market label.
Coined by the British financial firm Vanda Research, the ‘FAB 10’ stands for Frontier AI & Big Tech 10, and takes the original seven companies from ‘Mag 7’ together with the three new market darlings.
According to Vanda, last Friday’s SpaceX IPO offered the clearest signal yet that attention is widening beyond the ‘Magnificent 7’.
After Monday’s close above $192 per share, Elon Musk’s space and AI firm is now the sixth most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation.
The term ‘Magnificent 7’ was coined in late 2023 by Michael Hartnett, who wanted a single term for the megacap stocks powering the market to records.
Their combined value now sits at roughly $22.6 trillion (€19.5tn), with Nvidia alone worth more than $5 trillion (€4.33tn) as the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation.
The three newcomers represent a different flavour of the same AI boom.
SpaceX brings aerospace and satellite connectivity through its Starlink unit, while OpenAI and Anthropic are among the leading developers of frontier AI models.
According to Vanda, the ten companies collectively map the direction of the AI and technology sectors over the coming decade.
However, a wrinkle in the label is that two of the additions are not yet listed.
OpenAI and Anthropic remain private, though both have filed to approach public markets this year, potentially at valuations surpassing $1 trillion (€861bn) and making the ‘FAB 10’ as much a shorthand as a tradable basket.
The ‘FAB 10’ is also not the only contender.
Bank of America has floated an ‘AI Big 10’ that instead adds the chipmakers Broadcom, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Micron, reflecting the semiconductor rally.
Others have suggested smaller clusters, such as the rival ‘MANGOS’ label, which has surfaced and includes Meta, Anthropic, Nvidia, Google (Alphabet), OpenAI and SpaceX.
Strategists caution that none of the names signals the demise of the ‘Magnificent 7’, which still accounts for roughly a third of the S&P 500 index. Investors are not abandoning the originals but simply broadening the definition of who leads the AI era.
As Vanda frames it, the next decade’s winners may simply need a bigger tent.
SpaceX is set for the largest stock market debut ever.
Elon Musk’s rocket company begins trading on the Nasdaq on Friday under the ticker SPCX. The company priced its shares at $135 each, raising $75 billion (€64.5bn) and valuing the business at $1.75 trillion (€1.5trn) in the biggest stock market flotation on record.
The deal would comfortably eclipse Saudi Aramco’s previous record of $29.4bn, set in 2019 and later increased through an overallotment option.
SpaceX made an unusually strong push to attract retail investors, including those in Europe. According to Bloomberg, individual investors placed roughly $100bn (€86.6bn) in orders through trading platforms including Robinhood, Fidelity and SoFi during the IPO process.
That demand alone exceeded the company’s $75bn (€64.5bn) fundraising target, underscoring the level of interest from smaller investors ahead of the stock market debut.
Yet beneath the hype, several warning lights are flashing. Here are five risks investors should weigh before the SpaceX IPO goes live.
At a valuation of $1.75tn (€1.5trn), investors would be valuing SpaceX at roughly 94 times its annual revenue, which was $18.7bn (€16.1bn) in 2025. By comparison, Nvidia — one of the market’s most highly valued technology companies — trades at less than a quarter of that level.
The investment research firm Morningstar, which values the company at $780bn (€675bn), called it “significantly overvalued” while Goldman Sachs data suggests sustaining the share price would require revenues above $100bn (€86.6bn) by 2030, implying a compound annual growth of more than 40%.
History offers a note of caution. Research by University of Florida professor Jay Ritter, often referred to as “Mr IPO”, found that while IPOs between 2012 and 2021 rose an average of 23.6% on their first day of trading, they returned just 10.6% over the following three years.
SpaceX’s expected inclusion in major stock indexes has become a point of controversy. Investment officials from four large US states have urged Nasdaq and FTSE Russell to explain recent rule changes that could accelerate the company’s entry into widely tracked benchmarks.
Critics argue the move could expose passive investors to a highly valued stock sooner than expected, while the index providers say the changes reflect broader market developments.
The debate matters because relatively few SpaceX shares will initially be available for trading. Although SpaceX is valued at $1.75tr (€1.5trn), only around 3% to 4% of its shares will initially be available for public trading.
That means the company’s market value will be determined by trading in a relatively small portion of its equity. Reports suggest more than 75% of the $75bn (€64.5bn) offering has already been allocated to existing investors and insiders, leaving fewer shares available on the open market.
According to Morningstar, the limited float and strong demand for artificial intelligence-related stocks could help support the share price in the early stages of trading, even if the company is valued above what the research firm considers fair value. The firm argues that a clearer picture of investor demand may emerge once lock-up restrictions expire and more shares become available for trading.
Some analysts, however, believe the limited float could continue to support the stock. Estimates suggest between $22 billion (€19bn) and $27 billion (€23.4bn) of passive investment could flow into SpaceX once it joins the Nasdaq 100, creating additional demand from index-tracking funds.
SpaceX’s financial results may also give investors pause.
The prospectus shows that the company is growing rapidly but still losing money.
The company owns the Starlink satellite internet service, which generates most of its revenue and is its only profitable business. It also owns the artificial intelligence company xAI, which merged with SpaceX in February.
According to the filing, SpaceX carried an accumulated deficit of $41.3bn (€35.76bn) as of 31 March and reported a net loss of $4.27bn (€3.7bn) in the first quarter of 2026.
This compares with $528mn (€457mn) in the same period a year earlier.
Much of the recent loss stems from xAI. According to SpaceX’s IPO filing, the AI business recorded an operating loss of about $6.4 billion (€5.5bn) in 2025. The filing also showed xAI spent heavily in the opening months of 2026 as it expanded its AI infrastructure.
Morningstar argues the AI unit “poses a material threat of value destruction”, noting that Grok has yet to win meaningful market share against rival chatbots.
Supporters counter that the losses are a choice, not a structural flaw.
Revenue climbed 33% to $18.7bn (€16.2bn) in 2025, up from $14.1 billion (€12.2bn) a year earlier. The underlying launch and satellite business was profitable as recently as 2024. The deficits largely reflect heavy investment in AI infrastructure, spending that supporters say is already beginning to be offset by new compute contracts.
Supporters argue investors are paying for future growth rather than current profits.
Starlink remains the company’s main source of revenue, while its artificial intelligence business is expected to play a larger role in the years ahead.
Bulls also point to SpaceX’s dominant position in rocket launches and satellite communications, arguing the company is uniquely placed to benefit from growing demand for connectivity, computing power and AI infrastructure.
SpaceX conducts more rocket launches annually than the rest of the world combined and counts over nine million Starlink subscribers, but its newest growth driver is the AI data-centre business acquired through the xAI merger.
Last Friday, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million (€796.6mn) per month for compute capacity at xAI data centres, in a 32-month deal running from October 2026 through June 2029, and covering access to roughly 110,000 Nvidia GPUs.
That followed a May agreement under which Anthropic pays $1.25 billion (€1.08bn) a month to rent the entire output of the Colossus 1 data centre until May 2029, putting combined annualised compute revenue at around $26 billion (€22.5bn).
Bulls argue this contracted income, won in under four months, shows how quickly the company can monetise its infrastructure. Sceptics note that both contracts carry 90-day termination clauses after December 2026, and that Google itself has framed the arrangement as “bridge capacity” rather than a permanent commitment.
SpaceX’s success is closely tied to Elon Musk, whose profile and track record have helped attract investors, customers and business partners. That creates what investors call “key-person risk” — concerns about how the company would fare if he were no longer leading it.
The company’s governance structure reinforces that dependence. Musk’s super-voting Class B shares give him around 85% of voting power, leaving outside shareholders with little influence over major corporate decisions. In practice, that means no one but Musk himself can determine whether he remains chief executive.
Critics also point to SpaceX’s incorporation in Texas, where only investors holding at least 3% of shares can bring derivative lawsuits. The Danish academic pension fund AkademikerPension has blacklisted the stock, describing the governance structure as “catastrophic”.
Supporters argue that dual-class share structures are common among US technology firms, including Meta and Alphabet. They say concentrated voting control allows founders to pursue long-term goals without pressure from short-term investors.
Musk’s prominence also brings political risk. US Senator Elizabeth Warren has urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to scrutinise the listing, warning that future index inclusion could expose millions of passive investors to the stock without them actively choosing it.
Others note that the SEC completed its review faster than expected, allowing the IPO process to move ahead without delay and suggesting regulators see no immediate obstacle to the listing.
Disclaimer: This information does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it’s right for your specific circumstances. Also remember, we are a journalistic website and aim to provide the best guides, tips and advice from experts. If you rely on the information here, then you do so entirely at your own risk.
Credit markets shrug off geopolitical turmoil as investors seek yield, SocGen says
Source link
As SpaceX and Anthropic eye public listings, index providers brace for major market dislocations.
When mega-cap companies go public, index providers and investors will see it as dropping battleships into the old fishing pond. The resulting waves are going to soak everyone.
Privately held artificial intelligence (AI) vendor Anthropic announced its filing of a draft registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for an initial public offering at a later date. According to the company’s website, Anthropic has not decided on the number of shares it will offer, nor at what price. The company recently closed a $65 billion fundraising round, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.
The news comes as the SEC published SpaceX’s revised Form S-1 on the market regulator’s EDGAR database. The conspicuously absent OpenAI reportedly is filling out its underwriters bench for a possible September IPO. The AI company reached a post-money valuation of $852 billion, according to CNBC.
If index providers add these firms that would instantly become one of the 10-largest listed companies by market cap before their trading prices stabilize, it could cost them dearly due to resulting massive price dislocations.
“Leaving out a mega-cap company means the index is not doing its job,” James Angel, associate professor and faculty affiliate at Georgetown University’s Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy, tells Global Finance. “It thus makes sense to include a big IPO fairly quickly.”
“Big IPO” is not an understatement. Wall Street consensus expects SpaceX’s IPO to result in a market capitalization between $1.75 trillion and $2 trillion, would lower Meta’s and Tesla’s rankings in the10-largest Nasdaq-100 Index components by market capitalization while move Micron Technology out of the Top 10. If rumors of a SpaceX-Teslamerger prove true, only Nvidia, Alphabet, and Apple would have a larger market capitalization than the resulting $3.4 trillion behemoth.
Nasdaq has already addressed the mega-cap issue by updating the methodology for inclusion in its Nasdaq-100 Index, which represents the 100 largest Nasdaq-listed non-financial companies, in May.
Among the major changes made by Nasdaq was introducing quarterly index reconstitutions in March, June, and September, in addition to its regular December reconstitution. Nasdaq has also incorporated a “Fast Entry” pathway for new listings that rank among the top 40 of the current Nasdaq-100 constituents by full market capitalization, based on both listed and unlisted shares.
“These companies are evaluated on their seventh trading day and, if eligible, added shortly thereafter, with all existing liquidity requirements still applying,” explained Emily Spurling, Global Head of Index at Nasdaq Global Indexes, in an interview posted on the Nasdaq website. “The quarterly rebalance handles the broader population of eligible companies; Fast Entry ensures the index can respond in a timely way when a company of significant scale enters the public market.”
SpaceX stock could see its highest price jump not on June 12, its reported IPO day, but on July 7, the earliest it could be added to the Nasdaq-100 Index, according to The Motley Fool’s Sean Williams.
“Taking into account the Juneteenth (June 19) and Independence Day (July 3) holidays for the stock market, the 15th trading day, including its IPO day, is July 6,” he wrote. “Index funds that attempt to mirror the market-cap-weighted Nasdaq-100 will be required to purchase a jaw-dropping number of shares after this 15-day period comes to a close. Mandatory purchases from exchange-traded funds and index funds are estimated at $22 billion to $27 billion.”
“Nasdaq made the biggest change in the Nasdaq-100 rules as an inducement to listing on Nasdaq,” says Angel. “The other index providers have no similar incentive to shorten the seasoning period. I get the impression they are just doing it to make their indices more reflective of what is going on in the market.”
Meanwhile, S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) is mulling methodology changes to its S&P U.S. Indices and Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Indices. The company is considering whether to implement a “narrowly defined rule exception for MegaCap companies and adjustment to the IPO seasoning period,” according to a prepared statement.
The index vendor defines mega-cap companies as those with a market capitalization equal to or greater than the 100th largest company in the S&P Total Market Index, which was approximately $150 billion at the start of June.
According to reports from Bloomberg News, the major consideration is whether to reduce the seasoning period for IPOs before they are eligible for inclusion in an index to six months from 12 months
The consultation period ended on May 28, and any changes that S&P DJI proposes to implement would take effect “prior to the market open on Monday, June 8, 2026, unless otherwise announced,” the statement continued.
The company declined to comment beyond its published statement.
Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering.
Published On 1 Jun 20261 Jun 2026
Artificial intelligence giant Anthropic has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States, teeing up what could become a watershed moment for Wall Street’s AI frenzy.
The move, announced on Monday, sets up a high-stakes test of whether investor appetite for the AI revolution that has reshaped white-collar work around the world can match the sky-high expectations surrounding the booming sector.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering. Confidential submissions let companies advance IPO preparations while shielding sensitive financial details from rivals and the public.
Anthropic last raised $65bn at a post-money valuation of $965bn in late May, putting it ahead of rival OpenAI. The company said at the time it was making annualised revenue of $47bn from selling its technology to people and organisations using Claude to write code and do other work and personal tasks on their behalf.
The crucial step towards a listing comes on the heels of SpaceX’s mega-IPO, which is on course to rewrite the record books as the Elon Musk-led company pursues a $75bn offering at a $1.75 trillion valuation.
Anthropic was formed in 2021 by ex-OpenAI leaders, and now both AI firms, along with Elon Musk’s rocket and AI company SpaceX, are all expected to become publicly traded. All three are also still losing more money than they make, fuelling concerns of an AI bubble.
OpenAI and Anthropic have become the face of the AI boom that has redrawn corporate strategies, sparked a global arms race for computing power and talent, and turned AI-linked companies into some of the market’s most richly valued firms.
Anthropic’s rapid rise in early 2026 rattled markets, triggering sharp sell-offs in software and IT stocks as investors worried its increasingly autonomous AI tools could upend traditional business models and accelerate disruption across industries.
“OpenAI and Anthropic are in a race to go public before capital runs out,” said analyst Gil Luria from the investment firm DA Davidson.
“The other reason for Anthropic to try to beat OpenAI out to the public market is that they will get to set the agenda for how a frontier model reports financials and do so in a way that is favourable to their financial model.”
OpenAI is also preparing to confidentially file for a US IPO in the coming weeks, adding to a wave of blockbuster listings anticipated in the year ahead.
As many blockbuster listings race towards public markets, companies from SpaceX to AI giants are competing for a finite pool of investor capital.
“The combined demand for capital from SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic will be so considerable that it is likely to create disruptions in the capital markets, so going early will be a great advantage,” Luria said.
The listing would represent one of the most consequential stock market debuts in years, potentially reshaping benchmark indexes, investor flows and the broader narrative driving US equities.
At close to a $1 trillion valuation, Anthropic would vault into the top tier of the S&P 500, alongside a handful of elite companies that dominate global equity markets.
An Anthropic debut would be a major boost for the long-sluggish IPO market, though experts and bankers warn an offering of such scale could drain liquidity and investor attention from smaller listings.