u/Acceptable-Time-6424

I think Anthropic is materially undervalued even at its current ~$1T valuation (FT reporting, May 8). On my bottom-up analysis, Anthropic gets to $600B ARR by 2030 and $1T ARR by 2034. At those numbers, the company is worth multiples of where it's marked today. Every current valuation discussion is anchored too low.

What that means for AMZN holders:

The equity stake. Amazon's $8B investment in Anthropic is now worth over $70B on the balance sheet (Fortune, April 30, Amazon-confirmed). 8.75x markup, triggered by Anthropic's Series G at a $380B post-money valuation in February. The FT reported last week Anthropic is now in talks at $900B to $1T. If that round closes, Amazon's stake goes to roughly $165-185B. Another massive non-operating gain hitting AMZN earnings, possibly this year. And on my numbers, even $1T is still too low.

The AWS revenue. Anthropic committed to $100B+ in AWS spend over 10 years. Roughly $10B/year at full deployment. AWS did $108B total in 2024, so this is one customer signing up for ~10% of AWS's current annual revenue, locked in. Anthropic's ARR went from $9B at end of 2025 to $45B last week. Five-fold in five months. The AWS contract is sized for a trajectory that lands well into the hundreds of billions of ARR by 2030.

And it's all running on Trainium. Amazon's custom silicon. Every dollar of inference Anthropic runs on Trainium instead of NVIDIA is margin retained inside Amazon. Trainium + Graviton combined is already over $10B annual run-rate, growing triple digits YoY. The Anthropic deal is the commercial proof that custom silicon works at frontier scale.

Most AMZN sell-side models I've seen barely account for any of this as a discrete value driver, and they're definitely not modelling the equity stake at anywhere near my fair value for Anthropic.

If you want the full anthropic analysis for how I get to $600bn in revenue by 2030, I'll leave my long form analysis in the comments (no paywall).

At $78, RKLB fails every valuation test I can run.

Three scenarios, all working back from 2035, all using the McKinsey/WEF $755B backbone TAM (not the misleading $1.8T headline that includes Uber and DoorDash), all discounted at 12%:

https://preview.redd.it/oh6am00sw6yg1.png?width=2370&format=png&auto=webp&s=7efdd81f89d8c6baa9247920f55874db2aa789a4

The Bull case earns me my discount rate, nothing more. The Vision case requires Rocket Lab to take more than half of all non-SpaceX activity globally.

So why did I add more last week? Well, because I think the standard models miss what RKLB actually is.

Every megaconstellation, every defence satellite, every orbital data centre, every space-based solar array: none of it gets to space without launch capacity.

It's vertically integrated, capital-intensive, regulator-bound, physics-bound. You can't add a launch provider the way you can add an AWS region. And in the West, there are exactly two companies that can do it at scale by 2030: SpaceX and Rocket Lab.

That's it.

Owning the bottleneck of a growing economy is a structurally different kind of business. Freight railroads compounded for a century. Visa and Mastercard trade at 30 to 35x on mid-single-digit growth.

When demand explodes through your chokepoint, you set terms.

If you take the duopoly framing seriously, the multiple, the margin, and the capture rate in the standard Vision case could all be too low. Visa and Mastercard run 45 to 50% net margins. The standard Vision uses 22%. Apply duopoly economics and the maths goes somewhere uncomfortable.

My full piece covers the bear case (Bleecker Street's short report has aged better than people admit), the four pillars of the 2035 thesis, the risks I'm watching, and the Mega-Vision valuation that the standard model can't see. I'll put that in the comments if you're interested.

But tell me, am I crazy? or does the $232 valuation make sense?