The year 2026 has become the year of ‘IPO Fest’ at Wall Street. SpaceX’s record-breaking Nasdaq debut is just what the Street needed. Shattering previous market debut records, the space and tech giant raised $75 billion. This massive liquidity event sparked a rally, and renewed hopes for upcoming IPOs from OpenAI and Anthropic.
International Finance asked Susannah Streeter, the Chief Investment Strategist at Wealth Club, the United Kingdom’s largest non-advisory investment service for high net worth and experienced investors, whether Wall Street will be able to absorb the IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic, whose combined valuations may exceed $3.5 trillion.
Here are some excerpts from the interview:
With more than 200 IPOs in Q1 2026 and listings from SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI, can Wall Street absorb the likely IPO issuance associated with companies whose combined valuations may exceed $3.5 trillion?
Wall Street has shown a remarkable capacity to absorb huge amounts of capital when investor enthusiasm is running high, and right now AI is proving a powerful magnet for money. However, even deep capital markets have limits. If several mega-listings arrive in quick succession, as we are seeing, competition for investor attention and capital could intensify. The appetite appears strong, but the scale of these offerings means there may well be a test of demand, especially if market sentiment turns.
Given the strong IPO activity in Q1 2026, can we say Wall Street has fully recovered from the slowdown of 2023–24?
The rebound in IPO activity suggests confidence has returned, but it’s probably premature to declare a full recovery. Much of the momentum has been concentrated around a relatively narrow group of companies linked to artificial intelligence and other high-growth themes. A truly broad-based recovery would require robust issuance across multiple sectors and market capitalisations, not just a handful of headline-grabbing deals.
Are the IPOs of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI evidence that the AI investment boom is becoming concentrated in a handful of dominant players?
There are certainly signs that capital is gravitating towards a small group of companies perceived as having the scale, talent and computing power needed to dominate the AI race. Investors increasingly appear willing to pay a premium for firms controlling critical infrastructure, foundation models, and distribution networks. However, technological revolutions rarely follow a straight line. The rules of the AI race are evolving so quickly that some of tomorrow’s winners may still be under the radar. That’s why investors need to remain selective, diversified and realistic about risk.
Could mega-IPO listings, such as SpaceX and Anthropic, divert capital away from existing tech stocks, smaller AI firms, and other speculative assets like cryptocurrencies?
Large IPOs often trigger portfolio reshuffling as investors free up capital to participate in highly anticipated listings. Given the scale and profile of these companies, some rotation away from existing technology holdings and more speculative corners of the market isn’t surprising. Crypto is feeling the whiplash effects of AI enthusiasm and volatility.
It’s winter in the crypto world, with Bitcoin falling roughly 50% from its late-2025 peak of over $126,000. This steep decline has been triggered by massive ETF outflows. Although the sell-off intensified after the most recent wobble on the Nasdaq, it’s a multi-month trend, and has occurred as the AI trade has been played hard. It’s likely that some crypto money has been released to buy equities.
Even if existing shareholders retain most shares, could institutional demand for SpaceX and Anthropic create a significant liquidity and capital-allocation shock in the market?
The biggest impact may come less from the number of shares available and more from the scramble among institutional investors to gain exposure. When companies of this size and prominence come to market, fund managers often feel pressure not to be left behind. That can create significant shifts in capital allocation, particularly if several mega-listings arrive within a relatively short period.
Is Wall Street underestimating the risks of investing in long-term, capital-intensive ambitions such as SpaceX’s plans for Mars colonisation and space-based infrastructure?
What we’ve been seeing in this intense period of market enthusiasm is investors focusing more heavily on future opportunities than present-day risks. SpaceX’s ambitions are stratospheric and potentially transformative, but they are also highly capital-intensive and dependent on technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals and long-term execution.
Investors will need to balance the excitement of the vision against the realities of the investment horizon. One risk that isn’t being paid much attention to is the potential for geopolitical tensions to spill into the space domain. Space based infrastructure like satellites could become increasingly vulnerable, and we could see degradation of critical satellite networks through cyber-attacks, electronic warfare, jamming, or even direct anti-satellite actions.
How should investors evaluate SpaceX’s IPO given its substantial revenue growth but continued net losses?
The key question is likely to be whether investors view current losses as a by-product of aggressive expansion, or as a sign of structural challenges. Many high-growth companies have prioritised investment over profitability during periods of rapid scaling. Investors are likely to focus closely on revenue quality, cash generation potential, and the extent to which SpaceX can turn its technological leadership into sustainable long-term returns.
Should investors be concerned that Elon Musk is expected to retain overwhelming voting control of SpaceX even after the company goes public?
Dual-class and founder-controlled structures have become increasingly common among large technology companies, particularly where founders argue that long-term innovation requires protection from short-term market pressures. However, concentrated voting control inevitably raises governance questions because it limits the influence of minority shareholders. Investors will need to decide whether confidence in the leadership and strategy outweighs concerns about accountability.
Could Anthropic’s public warnings about the risks of advanced AI conflict with its decision to pursue an IPO, and raise additional capital?
Anthropic’s position has generally been that advanced AI development should be accompanied by strong safeguards and responsible oversight. Right now, regulators are still playing catch up, and there are crucial questions about AI adoption for societies to answer.
Pursuing an IPO and raising capital could be viewed as part of building the resources needed to develop and govern increasingly sophisticated systems. Being responsible about people and the planet is generally considered to be a sound investment strategy, and one which should be applauded. Nevertheless, there is likely to be scrutiny of how the company balances commercial growth with its stated commitment to AI safety.