I think this is down to how investors think about how to value a piece of a company. I think about it almost the same way as I think about sports gambling.
There's a value proposition in which direction the stock is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there. It only makes sense to be invested in a stock if you think it's going to be worth more later than it is now and the amount of time your money is tied up in this stock is commensurate with the profit you may get as a result.
Investors work on limited information about companies, and having a track record can influence a buying decision one way or another. It may matter to some investors and not to others. For many, it's weighed against the price of the stock. Would you bet $100 on a company with a short track record? What about $10,000, $100,000, or more? Generally there's a point where people drop out of buying more of a stock and say that they can't justify the risk given the information they have. That's the expected value that Anthropic will receive from that investor.
Anthropic needs to worry about what that number is for a huge amount of individual investors and how to maximize the amount of money put into the cost of their stocks, and there's very little chance that they can attract the biggest pool of investor money without some of those people considering their longevity vs a more established company like Meta. It may not matter to all investors, but the fact that it will matter to some makes it a factor in the total valuation.
Possibly speaks to its moat being weak, if a dedicated team from scratch can duplicate their efforts and get to where they are today in 2 years (but not where they will be).
Because building a stable revenue base takes time. We've had many flash-in-a-pan type product but things which still make money 10 years later are rare.
I think this is down to how investors think about how to value a piece of a company. I think about it almost the same way as I think about sports gambling.
There's a value proposition in which direction the stock is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there. It only makes sense to be invested in a stock if you think it's going to be worth more later than it is now and the amount of time your money is tied up in this stock is commensurate with the profit you may get as a result.
Investors work on limited information about companies, and having a track record can influence a buying decision one way or another. It may matter to some investors and not to others. For many, it's weighed against the price of the stock. Would you bet $100 on a company with a short track record? What about $10,000, $100,000, or more? Generally there's a point where people drop out of buying more of a stock and say that they can't justify the risk given the information they have. That's the expected value that Anthropic will receive from that investor.
Anthropic needs to worry about what that number is for a huge amount of individual investors and how to maximize the amount of money put into the cost of their stocks, and there's very little chance that they can attract the biggest pool of investor money without some of those people considering their longevity vs a more established company like Meta. It may not matter to all investors, but the fact that it will matter to some makes it a factor in the total valuation.
Possibly speaks to its moat being weak, if a dedicated team from scratch can duplicate their efforts and get to where they are today in 2 years (but not where they will be).
It's not work, but the Lindy effect makes Anthropic's outlook in 2032 very uncertain.
Because building a stable revenue base takes time. We've had many flash-in-a-pan type product but things which still make money 10 years later are rare.