Anthropic的财务数据曝光——亏损令人震惊

本节目由VCX赞助播出，VCX是私人科技公司的公开股票代码。

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech.

美国股市开启了历史上最伟大的财富创造浪潮，从底特律的工厂工人到奥马哈的农民。

The US stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha.

任何人都能拥有伟大美国公司的一部分。

Anyone could own a piece of the great American companies.

但如今，我们最具创新力的公司选择更长时间保持私有，这意味着普通美国人错失了机会，直到现在。

But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out, until now.

隆重推出VCX，私人科技公司的公开股票代码，现在可以在任何购买股票的地方使用。

Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks.

更多信息请访问getvcx.com。

Visit getvcx.com for more info.

网址是getvcx.com。

That's getvcx.com.

投资前请仔细考虑投资材料，包括投资目标、风险、费用和支出。

Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses.

这些信息和其他信息都可以在基金的招募说明书中找到，网址是 getvcx.com。

This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com.

这是付费赞助内容。

This is a paid sponsorship.

我是梅根·拉皮诺。

Megan Rapinoe here.

本周的《你为什么这样？》节目里，

This week on "Why Are You Like This?"

我和喜剧演员安珀·鲁芬聊了聊。

I am talking with comedian Amber Ruffin.

我们深入探讨了她职业生涯中的各种曲折，从错失白宫记者协会晚宴、错过《周六夜现场》，到成为塞斯·梅耶斯的编剧，再到拥有自己的孔雀电视台节目。

We dig into all the twists and the turns of her journey from losing the White House Correspondents' Dinner and missing out on "SNL," to becoming a writer for Seth Meyers and getting her own Peacock TV show.

另外，我还会带你看看丽贝卡·亨特为我拍摄的纪录片幕后花絮。

Plus, I'm giving you a behind-the-curtain look on Rebecca Hunt's documentary about me.

快去收听最新一期的《你为什么这样？》吧。

Check out the latest episode of "Why Are You Like This?"

无论你在哪里收听播客，还是在YouTube上。

wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube.

在拥挤的火车上占座，不说借过，不带耳机在手机上看视频。

Hogging seats on a crowded train, not saying excuse me, watching videos on your phone with no headphones in.

有时候感觉我们好像不知道怎么表现才对了。

Sometimes it feels like we don't know how to act anymore.

我们越来越多地看到人们违反规则。

What we have been seeing, increasingly, is people breaking rules.

如果别人都不守规矩，我为什么要守规矩呢？

Why should I play by the rules if nobody else is going to do that for me?

本周的《给我解释一下》节目，聊聊如何注意礼貌。

This week on "Explain It to Me," how to mind your manners.

每周日更新新集，无论你在哪里收听播客。

New episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts.

一万七千美元

$17,000

货币市场的疯狂。

Money markets madness.

如果金钱是邪恶的，那那座建筑就是地狱。

If money is evil, then that building is hell.

节目继续！

The show goes on!

快卖，马上在里面卖。

Sell, sell in there at once.

卖，卖！

Sell, sell!

欢迎收听《Prof G Markets》。

Welcome to Prof G Markets.

我是Ed Elson。

I'm Ed Elson.

今天是9月30日。

It is September 30th.

我们来看看昨天的市场情况。

Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

主要股指下跌，债券抛售仍在继续。

The major indices declined as the bond sell-off continued.

30年期美国国债收益率创下2002年以来的最高水平。

The yield on 30-year Treasuries hit its highest level since 2002.

10年期国债收益率也攀升至接近5.3%。

The 10-year also climbed towards 5.3%.

由于特朗普政府下令释放紧急储备，布伦特原油价格跌至每桶约102美元。

Brent crude fell to around $102 per barrel as the Trump administration ordered an emergency reserve release.

最后，苹果股价下跌近3%，因为有报道称新任CEO约翰·特努斯计划精简公司。

And finally, Apple shares fell nearly 3% on reports that the new CEO, John Ternus, is planning to slim down the company.

好的，还有什么其他消息？

Okay, what else is happening?

Anthropic的IPO招股说明书刚刚泄露，数字令人震惊。

Anthropic's IPO prospectus just leaked, and the numbers are staggering.

根据路透社拿到的S-1文件草稿，该公司去年营收达到46亿美元，比前一年增长了超过1000%。

According to Reuters, which obtained the draft of the S-1, the company reported $4.6 billion in revenue last year, up more than 1,000% from the year prior.

但他们也报告了80亿美元的运营亏损和420亿美元的净亏损。

But they also reported an operating loss of $8 billion and a net loss of $42 billion.

Anthropic在S-1文件中用了将近三分之一的篇幅来解释其风险因素。

Anthropic devoted almost a third of the S-1 to explaining its risk factors.

这些风险包括客户集中度，去年近四分之一的收入来自仅两个客户，当然，还有对人类的生存威胁。

Those included customer concentration, with close to a quarter of revenue last year coming from just two clients, and then, of course, the existential threat to humanity.

尽管如此，该公司预计将于11月以创纪录的2万亿美元估值上市，成为有史以来估值最高的IPO。

Still, the company is expected to go public at a record $2 trillion valuation in November, making it the most highly valued IPO of all time.

今天我们要讨论Anthropic的财务状况，或者说我们目前所知的有限信息，我们请到了SK Ventures的管理合伙人Paul Kedrosky。

Joining us to discuss Anthropic's financials, or at least what little we know, we are speaking with Paul Kedrosky, Managing Partner at SK Ventures.

Paul，很高兴见到你。

Paul, great to see you.

感谢你参加我们的节目。

Thank you for joining us.

我刚才念那些数字的时候，听到你笑了几声。

I heard some of your laughter as I went through the numbers.

我们终于拿到一些数字了。

We finally got some numbers.

需要说明的是，这些是2025年的数据，那你怎么看这些数字？

And to be clear, these are 2025, but what do you make of them?

说实话，这些数字大部分都以某种形式泄露过了，我们可以一个一个来看。

Honestly, most of those numbers, in one form or another, had already leaked, and we can go through them one at a time.

但特别引起我注意的，作为一个很久以前的股票分析师，是客户集中度，因为对于小公司来说，客户集中度不算什么。

But specifically the one, as a long-ago equity analyst, the one that catches my attention the quickest is customer concentration, because customer concentration is nothing for a small company.

你预期小公司会有很高的客户集中度，也就是说少数客户占了收入的很大一部分。

You expect a small company to have really high levels of customer concentration, meaning that a small number of customers is a material fraction of revenues.

但看到一家这么大的公司，两个客户就占了大约25%的收入，而且还有其他一些泄露的消息，或者说随便你怎么称呼，大约六个客户占了60%的收入。

But to see a company at this size, where two customers are on the order of 25% of revenues, and there's been some other leaks, or whatever you want to call it, that something like six customers are 60% of revenues.

这些数字，用专业术语来说，简直是离谱。

These are absolutely, to use the technical term, bananas numbers.

这些数字之所以重要，是因为它们显示了他们最早的客户有多么不寻常。

And why they matter is because it shows how unusual their earliest customers are.

这些客户太重要了，而且他们使用产品的方式非常特别，以至于他们占了收入的很大一部分。

They are so consequential, and they're using it in such unusual ways that they're such a material chunk of revenues.

对于年轻公司，你总是要关注的一点是——不过对于这么大规模的公司来说，这么说有点奇怪——他们能否跨越鸿沟，成功赢得那些与早期客户完全不同的新客户。具体来说，Facebook就是一个很好的例子。

And one of the things you always have to watch with young companies, well, this is strange to say at a company this size, is if they're able to jump across and succeed with later customers who are nothing like the early ones, and specifically in this case, Facebook is a good example.

Meta是他们最大的客户之一。

Meta is one of their largest customers.

我们从其他数据中知道这一点，而且Meta的使用方式完全不能代表其他公司，比如高盛，或者随便选一家标准工业企业，他们会怎么使用这些工具。

We know that from other data, and they're wildly unrepresentative of how, I don't know, Goldman Sachs, pick on a Standard Industrial's company or someone else, is going to use these tools.

所以这里有一个很大的问题，涉及两种风险。

So we've got a pretty open question here in terms of two kinds of risk.

一是客户集中度，二是这些早期客户在多大程度上能代表后来的客户。

One is the level of customer concentration, and the second is how representative these early customers are of later customers.

不过，我们也来看看2025年已知的那些数字吧。

Let's look at the numbers as well, though, that we know from 2025.

有420亿美元的净亏损。

There was the $42 billion in net losses.

需要说明的是，其中大约340亿是与重新评估融资工具相关的非现金支出。

To be clear, roughly $34 billion of that was a non-cash charge tied to revaluing their financing instruments.

所以这个数字要打个大大的星号。

So it's a big asterisk on that number.

虽然还是很大，但可能有个前提条件。

Still big, but maybe there's a caveat there.

但还有80亿美元的运营亏损，这是他们日常运营中亏损的金额。

But $8 billion in operating losses, so that's the amount of money that they're losing from the day-to-day operations.

当然，这是去年的数据，但你从这个数字中得到了什么启示？在评估这家公司时，它有多重要？

Granted, it's from last year, but what are your takeaways from that number, and how important is it when valuing this company?

这非常重要，而且这就是财务表演开始的地方。

It's hugely important, and this is the point where the finance as theater begins.

因为接下来他们会试图把这些运营亏损描述成我们不必太担心的事情，也就是与创建和运行这些模型相关的训练成本。

Because what's going to happen is they are going to try and characterize this operating losses as really related to something that we shouldn't be worrying our pretty little heads about, which is to say, training costs associated with the creation and running of these models.

在运营层面，如果忽略训练成本，这个数字是OpenAI和Anthropic都泄露过的，他们现在都说，仅就推理而言，他们在过去几个季度已经实现了现金流为正。

That on an operating level, just ignoring training costs, and this number is one OpenAI has leaked, Anthropic has leaked, they now all say that on an inference-only basis, they were already cash flow positive in the last couple of quarters.

但这将是争论的焦点，对吧？

But that's going to be the debate, right?

这就像我们以前在分析师时代说的一个老笑话，我们称之为“剔除坏东西后的收益”。

It's this old joke, we used to call it, in my analyst days, it's earnings before bad things.

如果你让我把收益说成是剔除坏东西后的，那我的收益看起来就非常好。

If you let me get away with characterizing my earnings before bad things, my earnings look really good.

所以你必须决定，这些坏东西是不是真的那么坏，因为它们对业务来说是根本性的，它们是否应该被允许归类为运营成本之外的东西，比如像研发那样资本化，还是它们实际上只是日常运营业务的一部分？

So you have to decide, are these bad things, and they're not so bad because they're fundamental to the business, are they things that they should be allowed to characterize as something other than operating costs, something you capitalize, for example, like you might with R&D, or are they actually just the day-to-day parts of running the business?

我会说是后者。

I would argue the latter.

训练成本只是日常运营业务的一部分，如果你每6到18个月就训练新模型，那可不是像建楼那样可以资本化四五年的事情。

The training costs are just the day-to-day running of the business that, and if you're training new models every six to 18 months, that's not something that you're capitalizing out four or five years like a building.

那是运营业务的一部分，应该反映在我们用来评估业务的收益中，把它剔除掉有点像是财务表演，但尽管如此，我们接下来会看到很多“剔除坏东西后的收益”这样的说法。

That's part of running the business, and it should be reflected in the earnings that we look at to value the business, and to take it away is kind of finance theater, but nevertheless, we're going to see a lot of EBBT, earnings before bad things, coming up here.

对，看起来训练成本可能会被剔除，谁知道呢，也许会被剔除，因为正如你所说，他们说至少按调整后的基础来看，他们现在是盈利的，但我们不知道他们剔除了什么。

Yeah, it seems like the training costs will be something that, who knows, maybe that'll be stripped out because, as you point out, they're saying that at least on an adjusted basis, they are profitable right now, but we don't know what they're stripping out.

也许他们剔除的就是训练成本。

Maybe they're stripping out the training costs.

我们确实知道他们剔除的是什么。

We do know what they're stripping out.

就是训练成本。

It's training costs.

我敢打赌他们就是这么做的，随时都可以。

I'll take that bet all day long that that's what they're doing.

另一件可能被剔除的事情，或者说有疑问是否被剔除的，是那些收入分成协议。

The other thing that supposedly they're stripping out, or there's a question about if they're stripping it out, are these revenue-sharing agreements.

因为，当然，Anthropic 欠亚马逊很大一部分收入，举个例子。

Because, of course, Anthropic owes a significant share of its revenue to Amazon, as an example.

而且听起来，我们知道他们在计算毛利率时，并没有把那个算进去。

And it sounds like, we know that when they're looking at their gross margins, they're not including that in their calculation.

比训练成本影响小一些，但还是挺重要的，我同意。

Less material than the training cost, but still consequential, I agree.

确实还是重要的。

Still consequential.

至于盈利情况——说实话，我们现在还不清楚，因为只有一些泄露的消息。

How profitable-- To be clear, we don't really know yet because we're only getting leaks.

但如果非要猜一下盈利情况的话，我们就只看Anthropic，到2026年，考虑到那些问题，你觉得它的盈利状况大概会是什么样？

But if you had to make a guess at the profitability, we'll just focus on Anthropic, right now in 2026, what would you say the profitability picture probably looks like given all of those questions?

嗯，再说一次，如果不算那些坏账，把训练成本和部分收入分成承诺去掉，我很难相信他们现在只靠推理服务就能实现正向现金流。

Well, again, absent earnings before bad things, taking away training costs and some of the revenue share commitments, it would be hard for me to believe that they're not showing that it's cash flow positive as it currently stands on an inference-only basis.

具体数字是多少，我们看到一些说法，说光推理服务就可能带来高达几十亿美元的正现金流，但这纯属猜测，他们还没公布，所以我们也不知道。

What those numbers look like, we've seen numbers suggested that it could be as high as a couple of billion dollars in positive cash flow just from inference alone, but that's purely speculation, and they haven't released it, so we don't know.

不过就算这样我也不会惊讶，但这跟整个公司的运营成本比起来还是小巫见大巫，也就是说，训练成本和其他一些，我称之为循环收入的部分，如果把这些剔除掉，公司的情况就完全不一样了。

But it wouldn't surprise me, but it's more than dwarfed by the business of running the business, which is to say training costs and some of the other, I'll say, more circular revenues if you back those out, and you take those things out and the business looks entirely different.

那问题就来了，你是不是想告诉我，训练成本以后就不算公司业务的一部分了？

So then the question becomes, well, are you trying to tell me that training costs are not a part of the business going forward?

因为我有时候会说，第一家停止训练模型、只做推理的前沿模型公司可能会赢，因为华尔街会奖励你削减成本、产生大量现金流。

Because I've sometimes argued that the first frontier model company to stop training models and just do inference is probably going to win because Wall Street will reward you for cutting costs and generating huge amounts of cash flow.

所以你不能两头都占。

So you can't have it both ways.

要么训练成本是业务的核心，要么它们就是你要削减的东西，这样你未来才能有惊人的正现金流。

Either training costs are integral to the business, or they're the thing you're going to cut so that you can be fantastically cash flow positive going forward.

所以我觉得他们就是想两头都占，而华尔街会在这方面给他们敲响警钟。

So I just think they're trying to have it both ways, and Wall Street's going to give them a wake-up call on that.

假设他们把训练成本剔除掉，把它算作那些坏东西之一，然后他们报告的是——

Let's assume that they are stripping out the training costs, that that's part of the bad things, and they're reporting-

……剔除那个坏东西之前的收益。

... the earnings before that bad thing.

在你看来，这种会计上的体操动作有多糟糕？

How bad, in your view, of an accounting gymnastic move do you consider that to be?

人们经常引用的终极会计管理不当的例子是WeWork，他们发明了所谓的社区调整后EBITDA，很多人说那是最荒谬的。

The ultimate sort of accounting mismanagement that people cite often is WeWork, where they invented this community-adjusted EBITDA, which a lot of people said was the most ridiculous.

结果怎么样，我们都知道了。

And we know how that went.

根本行不通。

It didn't work.

那次IPO简直是一场灾难。

It was a disaster of an IPO.

如果他们真这么干，把训练成本剔除掉，然后说‘我们盈利了’，你觉得这有多糟糕？

If that is what they're doing, they're taking out the training costs and saying, "We're profitable," how bad is that in your mind?

跟那个‘社区调整后’的指标比，你觉得怎么样？

How does it compare to, say, community adjusted?

我觉得那个‘社区调整后盈利’的指标，说白了就是个骗人的把戏，就是为了掩盖这家公司商业模式根本上的问题。

So I think the community-adjusted earnings was a frankly fraudulent measure, that it was an attempt to hide the fundamental broken economics of the business.

我觉得这里面确实有现金流业务，但前提是训练上的投入得大幅减少。

I think there is a cash flow business here, but it requires far less money spent on training.

所以，这算不算欺诈呢？

So is it fraudulent?

不是。这是不是会计处理不当？

No. Is it poor accounting?

是的。

Yes.

审计师应该支持这种做法吗？

Should it be supported by the auditors?

不应该。华尔街应该为此惩罚他们吗？

No. Should Wall Street punish them for it?

应该。

Yes.

那么，根据我们已知的数据，2万亿美元，你觉得这个估值过高了吗？

So $2 trillion, given the numbers that we know, you think that's Over valued?

嗯，这个价格太离谱了。今天早上我的一些朋友也在说，全球最大的几家对冲基金都在关注这个。想想看，在这么晚期的IPO中，以这种价格买入一家相对成熟的公司，当你环顾牌桌，想知道谁是冤大头的时候，那个人就是你。

Well, it's a ridiculous price, and as friends of mine were saying this morning, some of the largest hedge funds in the world looking at this, and it's like anyone who thinks that being the buyer at these kinds of prices in a very late-stage IPO of what amounts to a relatively mature company, when you look around the poker table and wonder who the sucker is, it's you.

不是因为这不是一门好生意，而是因为现在这已经不再是融资事件了。

Not because it's a bad business, just because what's happening is this is not a financing event anymore.

他们不是为了筹钱而融资的。

They're not raising money for anything.

我觉得真正的情况是大家在抛售股票。

I think what's really going on is people are unloading shares.

他们把股票抛给散户投资者和那些能快速进出的机构。

They're unloading shares on retail investors and on quick-flip institutions who are able to back in and out.

所以你得这么看，他们其实是在说："现在似乎是退出的好时机，我是内部人，我想退出。"

So you have to look at it accordingly and realize that this is really what they're saying is, "This seems like a good time to get out, and I'm an insider and I want out."

你的观点是不是，如果他们停止训练——先让大家明白区别，训练就是构建模型。

Is your view that if they stopped training, and just so everyone knows the difference, the training is the building the models.

就是创建这些先进的前沿模型。

It's creating these advanced frontier models.

推理只是运行它们，操作它们。

The inference is just running them, just operating them.

你的观点是不是，如果——因为我确实听AI领域的人说过："别担心。"

Is it your view that if, because this is something that I do hear from AI people that, "Don't worry.

如果我们把训练这个开关关掉，然后说，‘好吧，我们不再在这上面花钱了’，那我们就有了一门好生意。

If we just flip the training switch and just say, 'Okay, we're not going to spend money on this anymore,' then we have a great business."

这是你的看法吗？

Is that your view?

就是说，如果你这么做，去掉训练成本，只专注于推理，那么这些其实是可持续的商业模式，能行得通？

That if you do that, if you get rid of the training costs, you just focus on inference, then actually these are sustainable business models that work?

不，这是我给他们设的一个陷阱。

No, it's a trap I'm laying out for them.

如果他们真那么做，对他们来说其实是灾难性的。

It's actually catastrophic for them if they do that.

因为一旦他们那么做，他们基本上就变成了太阳能电池板制造商，要跟中国竞争，而中国会用更便宜的电力和大得多的工业代币产量把他们压垮，这些前沿公司根本应付不了。

So what happens when they do that is they then become basically solar panel manufacturers who are trying to compete with China, and China crushes them with cheaper power and vastly larger industrial token production than these frontier companies could ever cope with.

所以他们陷入了一个两难的境地：为了保护他们所谓的护城河，他们必须在训练上挥霍大量资金。

So they're caught between a terrible place, where to protect their so-called moat, they have to spend profligate amounts on training.

但如果他们不在训练上花大钱，现在看起来他们在推理上可能实现正现金流，那他们就成了工业代币生产商，跟工业光伏或工业电动车没什么两样。

But if they don't spend large amounts on training, and now it looks like they could be cash flow positive on inference, well, now they're into industrial token production, no different than industrial photovoltaics or industrial EVs.

而现在你面对的是中国这个庞然大物，它一次又一次地赢得这场游戏，并且已经在设定代币价格的下限。

And now you're up against this colossus called China, who wins that game over and over again and is already setting the floor in terms of token prices.

所以你陷入了一个两难的境地：如果不继续训练，你就没有护城河。

So you're in an impossible situation that if you don't keep training, you have no moat.

如果停止训练，你就会被中国大规模生产的代币压垮。

If you do stop training, you're crushed by the industrial production of tokens coming out of China.

那么，如果Anthropic和OpenAI必须继续在训练上烧掉数百亿美元，但一旦停止，就会被中国压垮，它们未来会怎样？

Well, then what are the potential futures for Anthropic and OpenAI if they have to continue burning tens of billions of dollars on training, but if they stop doing that, then suddenly they get crushed by China?

你是否认为，无论怎样，它们两个都不会有好结果？

Is it your view that there is no way that this works out for either of them?

不，我觉得它们会变成像法拉利那样的品牌。

No, I think they become like Ferrari.

也就是说，它们会成为市场中的高端性能代表。

So I think they become like the performance end of the marketplace.

而它们的对手是本田、丰田以及其他所有厂商。

So you're up against Honda and Toyota and everyone else.

你可能想假装自己能做大众市场制造商，但你不是。

You might want to pretend you can be a mass market manufacturer, but you're not.

你会被一步步挤压到所谓的性能市场的高端，就像法拉利Testarossa或布加迪威龙那样的好车一样。

You're going to be squeezed and squeezed and squeezed out into the so-called performance end of the market, no different than a Ferrari Testarossa's great cars, or a Bugatti Veyron, or something like this.

当然可以造这些车，但别指望能像当初作为非性能制造商起步时那样大规模销售。

By all means, make those, but don't imagine that you're going to be selling them at the sign of scale that you might have when you started off as a non-performance manufacturer.

这就是他们面临的战斗，他们很不愿意承认，但他们会越来越被推向市场的那个角落，被边缘化。

That's the battle they find themselves in, and they're really reluctant to concede it, but they're going to be pushed increasingly into that corner of the market and marginalized.

这里的风险披露，我们还没看到，但听起来很疯狂。

The risk disclosures here, we haven't actually seen them, but it sounds crazy.

嗯，这大概占了文件的三分之一。

Well, it's like a third of the document.

我年纪够大，还记得S-1里两页风险就算很多了，所以如果一份很长的S-1里有三分之一是风险披露，那真是疯了。

I'm old enough to remember when two pages of risks were a lot of risks in an S-1, so to have one third of what's being characterized as a very long S-1, that's nuts.

你得把人类可能灭亡的所有方式都列出来，当然——

Well, you've got to go through all the ways in which humanity is going to end, and of course-

哦，当然。

Oh, sure

……这是这份S-1文件的核心内容。

... that is a centerpiece of this S-1.

你见过这样的东西吗？

Have you ever seen anything like this?

一家公司说：“投资我们公司吧。

A company saying, "Invest in our company.

我们会成为一家很棒的企业，但顺便说一句，我们可能会毁灭文明”？

We're going to be a great business, but by the way, we might destroy civilization"?

我倒希望见过，那样会更有意思。

I wish I had because it would make it more entertaining.

我就能拿它们比较，说说它们的世界末日版本和Anthropic的相比，市盈率是多少。

I could compare it to them and say what the multiple is on their version of apocalypse versus Anthropic's.

但确实，以前从没发生过，而且如此反常，以至于你会愤世嫉俗地想，这肯定是营销手段。

But no, it's never happened before, and it's so wildly unusual that you get the cynical response that it must be marketing.

这不是营销手段。

It's not marketing.

达里奥真的相信这一点，他觉得说出来是负责任的表现。

Dario believes this, and he thinks he's being responsible in saying it.

所以并不是说他们想比谁更能带来末日，那就像是在某种奇怪的反乌托邦基准上争胜。

And so it's not somehow that they think they can out apocalypse the next guy, which is like winning some kind of strange dystopian benchmark.

不是的。

It's not.

他们并不是想赢得什么反乌托邦基准。

They're not trying to win a dystopian benchmark.

他们真的是在努力描述业务中的风险。

They're literally trying to characterize the risks in the business.

问题在于，人们读S-1文件时，就像这周佛罗里达州的情况一样，他们会说：“嘿，等等。

And the trouble is, people read S-1s, and when they read it, and you saw this with the state of Florida this week, then they say, "Hey, wait a minute.

你告诉我，你要推向公开市场的这个业务，可能对社会非常危险，但我们却要在受监管的SEC市场上允许你发行股票？”

You're telling me that this business that you're taking out on the public markets is potentially very dangerous for us as a society, and yet we're supposed to countenance the issuance of shares in this regulated SEC marketplace.

我完全不接受这套说法。

I'm not having any of it."

所以我预计会因此引发一连串的诉讼。

So I expect a litany of lawsuits over it for exactly this reason.

不管出什么问题，都会是一场没完没了的闹剧，因为他们早就警告过大家会发生什么，所以一旦出事，所有人都会排着队等着打官司。

It'll be a nonstop parade no matter what goes wrong because they already warned people that this is what's coming, so when it comes, everyone's going to be queued up at the start line for the lawsuits.

最后一个问题。

Final question.

IPO定在中期选举后的11月进行。

The IPO is set to happen in November after the midterms.

你对这次IPO有什么预期？

What do you expect from this IPO?

你觉得这次IPO至少会一开始就成功吗？

Would you expect that it'll be at least an initially successful IPO?

或者你对它上市后的表现有什么预测？

Or what are your predictions for when this thing goes out?

假设它真的发生的话，其实我一直打赌它不会发生，部分原因是我觉得中期选举后美国会变得像个香蕉共和国，连证券交易委员会都没有了。

Assuming it happens, and I actually have a standing bet that it doesn't happen, and it is part because I think the US is going to be something like a banana republic with no SEC at all after the midterms.

我觉得我们会陷入那种疯狂的“谁藏了选票”的世界。

I think we'll be in this crazy who hid the votes world.

但不管怎样，假设它真的发生，你现在能看到所有迹象表明资金正从其他地方撤出，转而投向Anthropic。我关注这个有一段时间了，最新的例子就是Oura的IPO。

But anyways, assuming it happens, you're seeing all the signs now that money's being pulled out of other things to be redirected into Anthropic, and I've been following this for some time, but the latest example was the Oura IPO.

所有这些其他项目之所以资金紧张，其中一个原因就是大型机构投资者没有印钞机。

One of the reasons why all of these other things are being starved for capital is because large institutional investors do not have printing presses in the basement.

他们必须卖掉其他东西才能有现金去买新东西。

They have to sell other things to have cash to buy the new thing.

所以现在的情况就是，资金正从其他项目大量流出。

And so what's happening is, is cash is flooding out of other things.

你可以把它想象成海啸前的退潮。

You have to think of it like the tide receding before a tsunami.

所有的钱都在往外流，然后都会被重新导向那里。

It's all going out, and it's all going to be redirected there.

所以资金是有的，只要他们能推出去，但周围的动态情况很糟糕。

So the money's there to support it if they can make it go out, but the dynamics around it are terrible.

所以我预计它会在该出来的时候出来，而且会以SpaceX意义上的成功来成功，然后我们就会立刻看到下跌。

So I'd expect it comes out when it comes out, and it's successful in a SpaceX sense of successful, and then we have the immediate slide lower.

保罗·凯德罗斯基是SK Ventures的管理合伙人。

Paul Kedrosky is managing partner at SK Ventures.

保罗，非常感谢你抽出时间。

Paul, we really appreciate your time.

谢谢。

Thank you.

是的，很高兴来到这里。

Yeah, great being here.

休息之后，Oura搁置了IPO。

After the break, Oura shelves its IPO.

我们还有一些令人兴奋的消息。

And we have some exciting news.

我们入围了三个信号奖。

We've been nominated for three Signal Awards.

请到vote.signalaward.com为我们投票。

Please vote for us at vote.signalaward.com.

在搜索栏输入“Prof G Markets”，就能找到我们。

Type in "Prof G Markets" in the search bar and you'll find us.

我们也会在描述里放一个链接。

We'll also leave a link in the description.

本期节目由Whatnot赞助播出。

Support for the show comes from Whatnot.

近年来，直播作为一种娱乐形式，人气暴涨。

Livestreaming as a form of entertainment has exploded in popularity in recent years.

所以自然而然地，越来越多的商家开始通过直播来线上销售。

So naturally, there's a growing niche for business owners to sell online via livestreams.

那种实时互动、即兴发挥和社区氛围，为全新的商业模式创造了机会。

And that proximity, spontaneity, and community building in real time creates an opportunity for a whole new way to do business.

你可以自己去Whatnot上看看是什么样子。

You can see what it's like for yourself at Whatnot.

Whatnot是最大的专门直播购物平台。

Whatnot is the largest dedicated live shopping platform.

卖家们正在通过销售美妆、收藏品、电子产品、奢侈时尚，甚至饼干，建立起真正蓬勃发展的生意。

Sellers are building real thriving businesses selling beauty, collectibles, electronics, luxury fashion, even cookies.

任何人都可以卖，无论你的生意是大是小，还是尚未起步。

Anyone can sell, whether your business is big, small, or yet to exist.

它的一大吸引力在于，你不仅仅是在上架商品，而是在与买家建立真实的联系。

A big part of the appeal is that you're not just listing products, you're building real connections with buyers.

在Whatnot上，年收入超过一百万美元的卖家数量已经翻了一番。

Across Whatnot, the number of sellers making over one million dollars a year has doubled.

Whatnot的买家每天在应用上花费超过一个小时。

Whatnot buyers spend more than an hour a day in the app.

他们不只是随便看看，而是积极参与、购买，并且还会回来。

They're not just browsing, they're engaged, buying, and coming back.

而且作为卖家，这可以不仅仅是副业。

And as a seller, this can become more than a side hustle.

在Whatnot上，保持稳定能让你走上一条打造持久事业的道路。

On Whatnot, staying consistent can put you on a path to building something that can last.

在App Store搜索Whatnot，拼写是W-H-A-T-N-O-T，下载后就可以立即开始销售。

Search Whatnot, spelled W-H-A-T-N-O-T, in the App Store, download, and you can start selling right away.

就像任何典型的千禧一代一样，我对Z世代又爱又恨。

So like any good millennial, I have a love-hate relationship with Gen Z.

这是让千禧一代感到不安的现象。

It's the phenomenon rattling millennials.

他们只是看着你。

They just look at you.

他们自己想要更大的东西。

They want something bigger themselves.

生活方式是优先考虑的事情。

Lifestyle is a priority.

动力就是被激励。

Motivation is being inspired.

但不管你对Z世代怎么看，不可否认的是，他们正在改变国家政治。

But regardless of how you feel about Gen Z, it's undeniable that they're changing national politics.

Z世代对传统政党的忠诚度越来越低，很多人现在更倾向于认为自己是独立选民。

Generation Z is increasingly showing less loyalty to traditional political parties, many now more likely to identify as independent.

那这些年轻人到底是怎么回事？

So what is going on with the kids?

我觉得现在对Z世代政治最大的误解是，突然之间他们都成了社会主义者。

I think the biggest misconception about Gen Z's politics right now is that all of a sudden they're all socialists.

事实根本不是这样。

That is just not the case.

他们之所以支持那些提出新颖大胆想法的候选人，是因为建制派民主党人没有提出这样的想法。

They are embracing candidates who are offering new, bold ideas in the absence of those ideas from establishment Democrats.

本周的《真实的美国》节目中，Z世代研究员Rachel Gianfaza将加入我们，一起分辨关于Z世代的真伪。

This week on "America Actually," Gen Z researcher Rachel Gianfaza joins us to separate Gen Z fact versus fiction.

这又不是什么高深的事，我一直说年轻选民其实没那么复杂。

It's not rocket science, and I keep saying young voters aren't that complicated after all.

很简单。

It's pretty simple.

每周六在YouTube或你收听播客的任何平台都能找到我们。

Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

现在到处都在闹AI恐慌。

AI panic is everywhere.

我们不希望这个县建数据中心。

We do not want a data center in this county.

AI模型在入侵和退出计算机系统方面的能力已经变得超乎常人。

AI models are becoming superhuman in their ability to break in and out of computer systems.

那些监控摄像头，兄弟。

the flock cameras, bro.

我讨厌那些东西。

I hate those things.

但这种恐慌到底从何而来？

But where is that panic really coming from?

根据《纽约时报》和锡耶纳学院的民调，在今年的中期选举中，只有不到1%的选民把人工智能或数据中心列为他们的首要关注点。

According to a poll from The New York Times and Siena, less than 1% of voters listed artificial intelligence or data centers as their top priority in this year's midterms.

我是个老派的人。

I'm an old school person.

我不在乎人工智能。

I don't care about AI.

你是说这对你来说不重要？

You're saying that doesn't register for you?

对。

No.

有时候我在想，在所谓的“真正的美国”，人们真的在乎人工智能吗？

And sometimes I wonder, do they care about AI in so-called real America?

我所在选区的民众说：“我们认为风险大于收益。”

What people in my district are saying is, "We think the risks outweigh the benefits."

本周的《真实的美国》节目里，我采访了密歇根州的国会候选人威尔·劳伦斯，聊了聊他为什么把整个竞选都押在应对AI革命上。

This week on "America Actually," I'm talking to Michigan congressional candidate Will Lawrence on why he shaped his entire campaign around confronting the AI revolution.

说实话，我觉得归根结底就是控制权的问题。

Really, it's about control, I think, above all.

谁来拍板？

Who decides?

因为大家觉得，在这件事上自己根本没什么发言权。

Because people feel like they just are not really given any say so in the whole matter.

每周六记得在YouTube或者你常用的播客平台上收听我们的节目。

Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

欢迎回到《G教授谈市场》。

We're back with Prof G Markets.

Oura公司暂停了IPO计划。

Oura has hit pause on its IPO.

我们几天前报道过，这家智能戒指制造商原本这周就要上市，计划募资高达22亿美元。

As we covered a few days ago, the smart ring maker was supposed to start trading this week and planned to raise up to $2.2 billion.

据报道，认购订单超额了大约四倍。

Reportedly, the order book was about four times oversubscribed.

公司的S-1文件显示，Oura是盈利的，并且预计今年营收将增长90%。

The company's S-1 showed that Oura is profitable and that it expects revenue to grow 90% this year.

但即便如此，还是没能敲响上市的钟声。

But still, that wasn't enough to ring the bell.

公司昨天叫停了上市，理由是“IPO市场存在不确定性”。

The company pulled the plug yesterday, citing, quote, "uncertainty in the IPO market."

在一份声明中，CEO汤姆·海尔表示：“我们的目标是为员工和投资者带来一次非凡的IPO，而且我们有条件选择最佳时机。”

In a statement, CEO Tom Haile said that, quote, "We aim to deliver an extraordinary IPO for our employees and investors, and we have the luxury of choosing our moment."

但公司没有给出未来上市的新日期。

But the company did not give a new date for its future offering.

Oura现在是本月第三家暂停IPO计划的公司。

Oura is now the third company this month to halt its IPO plans.

与此同时，正如我们刚才讨论的，Anthropic正在筹备可能是有史以来规模最大的IPO。

Meanwhile, as we just discussed, Anthropic is preparing for what could be the largest IPO of all time.

但投资者现在不禁要问，IPO市场到底还行不行？

But investors are now left wondering, is the IPO market all right?

为了深入探讨这个问题，我们请到了佛罗里达大学IPO项目主任杰伊·里特。

Here to break this down, we're speaking with Jay Ritter, director of the IPO Initiative at the University of Florida.

杰伊，非常感谢你来到Prof G Markets节目。

Jay, thank you so much for joining us on Prof G Markets.

所以Oura推迟了IPO。

So Oura has delayed its IPO.

他们说市场条件不太好。

They are saying that the market conditions are not great.

你觉得真正的问题出在哪里？

What do you think the problem actually is here?

担心市场条件确实有一定道理。

There is some merit to being concerned about market conditions.

尽管股市接近历史高点，无论是标普500还是纳斯达克，正如你刚才提到的，这也不是最近决定推迟IPO的唯一知名公司。

Even though stock markets are near all-time highs, whether we're looking at the S&P 500 or Nasdaq, as you just mentioned, this is not the only prominent company that has recently decided to postpone its IPO.

有些投资者对公司的估值有顾虑。

Some investors have concerns about the company's valuation.

这些都是好公司，不管是Oura、Holtec Nuclear还是Bamboo Insurance。

These are good companies, whether we're talking about Oura or Holtec Nuclear or Bamboo Insurance.

都是稳健扎实的公司，成熟，收入可观，但再好的公司，价格不合适，也不是好的投资。

Good, solid companies, mature, substantial revenue, but there's a price at which a great company is not a great investment.

你深入研究IPO，那公司上市时到底在找什么？

What exactly, because you study IPOs very in-depth, is a company looking for when they go out to the public markets?

因为就像你说的，我看这个市场，确实有风险，但风险一直都有，而且今年到现在涨了12%。

Because as you said, I look at this market, yeah, there are risks, but there are always risks, and it's up 12% year to date.

目前市场相当健康强劲，至少看起来是这样。

It's a pretty healthy, strong market at the moment, at least it seems.

但他们说现在不是合适的时机。

But they say that this isn't the right moment.

公司上市时到底在找什么？

What exactly is a company looking for when they go public?

他们寻求的是流动性和筹集资金，可能还有用于收购的货币。

They're looking for liquidity and raising capital, and possibly a currency for making acquisitions.

作为一家上市公司，你可以通过换股交易来收购另一家公司。

As a public company, you can do a stock for stock deal to acquire another company.

现在，这家公司并没有在烧钱。

Now, here, the company is not burning cash.

不像Anthropic那样烧钱速度惊人，这家公司因为不缺现金，所以有资本不上市。

Unlike Anthropic, where they have a huge cash burn rate, the company does have the luxury of not going public because it's not needing the cash.

但我认为很多公司对自己的估值期望过高。

But I think with a lot of companies, they get lofty expectations about what their value should be.

而机构投资者在考虑时担心，这会不会是下一个GoPro或Peloton，或者像11年前没有上市的SoulCycle那样，当时也是一家快速增长、准备上市但推迟上市的公司。

And institutional investors who are looking at it are worried, could this be the next GoPro or Peloton, or a company that never did go public 11 years ago, SoulCycle, was also a rapidly growing company that was about to go public and postponed going public.

他们最终也没上市。

They never have gone public.

但这些公司都可以被视为某种“一招鲜”，它们增长迅速，但增长可能会遇到瓶颈。

But all of these can be viewed as kind of one-trick ponies where they were growing rapidly, but are going to be hitting a wall in terms of growth.

就像GoPro一样，很多想买GoPro相机的人已经买了，而且这些相机不会马上坏掉。

Like with GoPro, a lot of people who wanted the GoPro camera bought it already, and they don't wear out immediately.

它们不需要更换，市场也没有持续爆发增长。

They don't need to be replaced, and the market was not exploding with continued growth.

我觉得有些投资者对Oura Ring也有类似的担忧，虽然产品很好，但个人健康测量领域并不是没有竞争对手。

And I think some investors have the concern here with the Oura Ring, well, they've got a great product, but it's not as if there aren't any competing products for personal health measurement.

而且这个市场到底有多大？

And just how big is the market?

能有多赚钱？

How profitable is it going to be?

它没有像Anthropic那样的增长潜力。

It doesn't have the upside of a company like Anthropic.

你觉得他们在向投资者展示、路演和推销的时候，是不是已经听到了投资者的这些顾虑，所以才决定放弃上市？也许投资者在跟他们说：“万一你是下一个GoPro呢？”

Do you think that when they were showing this to investors and doing the roadshow and shopping this around, do you think maybe they were hearing that from investors, and that has led to the reasoning for pulling the plug on this thing, that maybe investors were telling them, "Well, what if you're a GoPro?

万一你是下一个Peloton呢？

What if you're a Peloton?

万一你是SoulCycle呢？

What if you're a SoulCycle?"

你觉得这是不是反映了投资者在告诉他们“我们不看好这个东西”，还是说可能另有原因？

Do you think it is reflective of investors telling them, "We don't buy this thing," or perhaps could it have been something else?

不是每个潜在的机构投资者都一样。

Not every potential institutional investor is the same.

有些人比其他人更持怀疑态度，我敢肯定。

Some were more skeptical than others, I'm sure.

公司甚至在路演开始之前，通常会先试探一下市场反应。

Companies, even before they start the roadshow, typically test the waters.

他们会和潜在的机构投资者交谈，有时会持续好几个月，如果之前做过私募融资轮，甚至可能更久。

They talk to potential institutional investors, sometimes over a period of many months, sometimes even longer than that if they've done some private funding rounds.

但他们并不总能从这些投资者那里得到真实的反馈，因为假设一家公司正在讨论110亿美元的估值，而某个投资者认为：“我愿意支付反映80亿美元的价格，但如果我告诉公司这个坏消息，在IPO时获取股份时，公司可能会记恨我。”

But they don't always get truthful feedback from those investors because, let's say a company, hypothetically, is talking about an $11 billion valuation, and an investor thinks, "Well, I'd be willing to pay a price that reflects 8 billion, but if I tell the company that bad news, when it comes to getting shares in the IPO, the company might hold that against me.

所以我没有动力告诉他们你不值110亿。

So I don't have an incentive to tell them you're not worth 11 billion."

所以有些投资者真的认为它值110亿，他们可能会成为啦啦队，而那些更持怀疑态度的人可能不愿意承认，因为他们担心在获得股份时会被记恨。

And so some investors who really do think it's worth 11 billion might be cheerleaders, and those that are more skeptical might not be willing to fess up because they're afraid that that's going to be held against them when it comes to getting shares.

你提到了SoulCycle，他们计划上市，然后决定不上市，最后再也没有上市。

You mentioned SoulCycle, this idea that they make a plan to go public, then they decide not to do it, and then they never go public.

公司暂停IPO这种情况常见吗？

Is that a common occurrence when companies pause their IPOs?

还有一个后续问题，你觉得Oura将来会上市吗？

And follow-up question, do you think that Oura will ever go public?

从历史上看，大多数暂停IPO的公司最终都没有上市。

Historically, the majority of companies that have paused their IPOs have never gone public.

有些公司，比如SoulCycle，被收购了，有时价格不错，有时更像是贱卖或保守估值。

Some, like SoulCycle, get acquired, sometimes at a good price, sometimes at more of a fire sale price or conservative valuation.

对公司来说，难的是执行商业模式。

What's difficult for companies is to execute the business model.

事情总会发生。

Stuff happens.

一家公司可能各方面都运转得很好，但竞争来了，或者需求消失了，有时候这些都不是它能控制的。

A company can be firing on all cylinders, but competition comes along or the demand evaporates, sometimes for things outside of its control.

没有人能百分百预知未来。

Nobody can foresee the future with certainty.

但考虑到那些推迟IPO的公司的历史记录，大多数最终都没能上市，所以这最有可能的结果就是如此。

But given the track record of companies that have postponed their IPO, where most of the time they never do go public, that's the most likely outcome here.

如果他们继续执行计划，这可能是个明智的决定。

If they continue to execute, this might be a good decision.

他们也许一两年后能以更高的估值上市。

They might wind up being able to go public at an even higher valuation a year or two from now.

但谁知道呢？

But who knows?

这可能就像2007年秋天那样，如果你再等久一点，可能就得等上好多年。

It could be like the autumn of 2007, where if you waited a little longer, you might have had to wait for many years.

是的，这似乎确实是个关键问题。

Yes, that does seem to be the pertinent question.

杰伊·里特是佛罗里达大学IPO项目的负责人。

Jay Ritter is director of the IPO Initiative at the University of Florida.

杰伊，非常感谢你抽出时间。

Jay, we really appreciate your time.

谢谢。

Thank you.

不客气。

My pleasure.

让我们暂时离开IPO的话题，进入体育世界，更具体地说，是体育欺诈。

Let's take a break from the world of IPOs and dive into the world of sports, or more specifically, sports fraud.

曼城，过去15年英超最成功的足球俱乐部，刚刚被判犯有大规模财务欺诈罪，时间跨度长达，你猜怎么着，15年。

Manchester City, the most successful Premier League football club of the past 15 years, was just found guilty of mass financial fraud that spanned the past, wait for it, 15 years.

是的，英超刚刚确认，在2009年到2018年之间，曼城歪曲了他们的财务报表，涉及金额高达9亿英镑。

Yes, the Premier League just confirmed that between 2009 and 2018, Manchester City misrepresented their financial statements to the tune of 900 million pounds.

他们还因发布虚假合同而被判有罪，这些合同让他们绕过了英超的财务规定，最终让他们花了比实际允许更多的钱来购买顶级球员。

They were also found guilty of issuing sham contracts that allowed them to skirt around the Premier League's financial regulations and ultimately allowed them to spend more money to buy top-class players than they were actually allowed.