Potential IPO fever from major tech stock market debuts (IPOs) in 2026: Why it doesn’t affect most long-term investors?

SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic… Headlines about major IPOs are multiplying these days. We analyze what they really mean for your portfolio and why, for most investors, the answer is more reassuring than it may seem.

Potential major IPOs in 2026

The IPO window reopens

After several years of relative calm, the Initial Public Offering (IPO) market is once again capturing investors’ attention. SpaceX has announced plans to go public in the coming weeks, while artificial intelligence companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic are considering entering public markets during the second half of 2026. These are not just any companies: we are talking about some of the most highly valued private companies in the world.

Recently, CEREBRAS, a company aiming to compete with NVIDIA, has already gone public.

The question many investors may ask is inevitable: should I pay attention? Does this change anything in my investment strategy? To answer properly, it is worth first understanding the phenomenon in perspective.

Why now?

The universe of publicly listed companies has been shrinking for years

There is a structural trend that often goes unnoticed: globally, the number of publicly listed companies has been declining for years. Three factors explain this phenomenon: the greater availability of private capital (venture capital and private equity), the regulatory burden associated with being publicly listed, and sector consolidation reducing the number of independent players.

For investors in public markets, this trend is not good news: fewer listed companies mean fewer investment opportunities. In that sense, a wave of significant IPOs should be viewed positively: it expands the investable universe.

The fact that companies as important as SpaceX or the major AI firms decide to go public is, in principle, good news for public-market investors.

More options, more potential diversification.

History as a mirror

The dot-com bubble taught us to distinguish quantity from quality

However, the euphoria surrounding IPOs also has a darker side, and history illustrates this well. During the 1995–2001 period, known as the dot-com era, the number of IPOs in the United States skyrocketed alongside investor optimism. The problem was not only quantity, but quality: standards were relaxed, and many of those companies disappeared just a few years later.

Are we facing a similar situation?

Current data suggest we are not.

Despite the recent strong performance of equities, the number of IPOs has not surged with the same intensity as during that period. Investor caution and the growth of private markets have acted as a natural brake.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

The largest global IPOs since 1996 by market capitalization at the time of listing. SpaceX is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion, which would make it one of the largest in history. The chart illustrates this clearly: SpaceX is targeting a valuation of $1.75 trillion in its IPO, expected next month, which would make it the largest IPO in U.S. history — and possibly the first company ever to surpass a $1 trillion market capitalization on day one — ahead of Alibaba (2014) or Meta (2012). These are exceptional cases due to their size and relevance, not the beginning of an indiscriminate flood.

What we should watch closely

There may certainly be side effects, and for that reason it makes sense to monitor three dynamics that could emerge:

1. Selling pressure on existing stocks. Fund managers who want to participate in an IPO often need to sell current holdings to finance the purchase. With few IPOs, the impact is limited; with many happening simultaneously, it could become noticeable.
2. A barometer of investor sentiment. The success or failure of a major IPO can act as a thermometer for market appetite, especially in a sector as closely watched as artificial intelligence.
3. Index inclusion rules. Not all indexes incorporate newly listed companies equally quickly. Nasdaq may do so within weeks; the S&P 500 has stricter criteria, particularly regarding historical profitability. Weighting also depends on “free float,” meaning the portion of shares actually available to investors.

This last point is probably relevant for indexed portfolios: an index does not capture a company’s potential initial surge on its first trading day. If the stock “pops” after listing and later falls, the index may include it only at lower levels. This is not necessarily bad: the index also avoids first-day risk, but it is worth keeping in mind.

The approaching wave in greater detail

SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic: three companies, three very different financial stories

During the week of May 20, SpaceX filed its prospectus with the SEC, offering the first public and audited look at its finances in its 24-year history, with a Nasdaq listing expected under the ticker SPCX by mid-June. The document reveals a company that is actually three overlapping businesses with radically different dynamics.

Starlink (connectivity) is the engine supporting everything: it generated $3.257 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2026 with operating profit of $1.188 billion, and ended March with 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. The space division (rocket launches) continues to operate at a loss: $619 million in revenue and $662 million in operating losses during the same quarter. And SpaceXAI — integrating xAI, Grok, and Colossus data centers following the February 2026 merger — is the deepest hole: $2.469 billion in operating losses in the first quarter alone, and $6.355 billion in losses throughout 2025. In 2024, before the merger, SpaceX was profitable, with $791 million in net income. Today, it is not.

Let us remember something important: a company like SpaceX seeking a valuation of more than 100 times annual sales is not justified by current results, but by the promise of Starship, orbital data centers, and xAI. Investors in the IPO are buying that promise with all its embedded uncertainty.

One technical detail relevant for indexed portfolios: SpaceX will benefit from Nasdaq’s new fast-track inclusion rule, which would allow automatic entry into the Nasdaq-100 after only 15 trading days, generating forced buying by ETFs tracking the index. But once again, index mechanisms act as a temporary filter: funds will include it once it has an actual trading history, not at the moment of maximum uncertainty during its debut.

Behind SpaceX, the next wave is already forming. Anthropic is targeting an IPO as early as October. OpenAI could follow in the fourth quarter, although its CFO has warned that the company is not yet ready to be public — and last month it became known that it failed to meet its own revenue targets. Together, the three companies could seek to raise nearly $200 billion in public markets this year. There is no historical precedent for such a concentration of capital in such a short period.

The Starship launch

Rarely do we have the opportunity to observe in real time how an operational decision impacts IPO expectations. While writing this post, we saw it happen with SpaceX: on May 21, the company attempted the twelfth test flight of its Starship rocket — the largest ever built, standing nearly 120 meters tall — from its Starbase facility in Texas. After a last-minute delay on Thursday, the launch took place on Friday.

This was not just another test. SpaceX had published its S-1 filing days earlier, and the launch represented its last chance to impress investors before the listing. PitchBook analysts described it as “super important for the IPO”: a failure could have caused investor enthusiasm to “decline dramatically.”

What was the result? A broad success, though not a perfect one. Starship V3 lifted off on Friday, May 22 at 5:30 pm local time from Starbase (Texas), cleanly separated its two stages, deployed 20 simulated Starlink satellites one by one — plus two real satellites that scanned the heat shield during reentry — and completed a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean after just over an hour of flight. The Super Heavy booster fell into the Gulf of Mexico as planned, although it did not complete the intended return maneuver. One of the six upper-stage Starship engines was lost during the early phases, leading to the cancellation of an orbital reignition, but the vehicle completed the rest of its objectives intact. Elon Musk described it as an “epic first launch and landing of Starship V3.”

Kathleen Curlee, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, described it as “a significant step forward in SpaceX’s broader strategy.” Despite some anomalies, the flight generated highly valuable engineering and operational data and reinforced the company’s narrative ahead of next month’s expected IPO.

What this episode perfectly illustrates is the double-sided nature of risk in a high-profile IPO. SpaceX’s valuation — $1.75 trillion according to the prospectus — does not rest solely on current financials, but on the promise that Starship will transform its business: more Starlink launches, orbital data centers, NASA Artemis Moon missions in 2028, and, in the longer term, Mars. If that technological promise is questioned, the entire valuation equation becomes unstable. Investors buying at the time of the IPO are, in part, betting on that still uncertain future.

What really moves portfolios

Today, returns are driven more by earnings than valuations

One reassuring element: when we analyze the current behavior of equities, we see that returns are being driven mainly by real corporate earnings growth, not by multiple expansion or speculative excess. That is a sign of structural health, very different from what we observed in 2000 or 2021.

The SpaceX case is a useful reminder: even the most technologically fascinating companies can present complex financial profiles at the moment of going public. Indexes, with their inclusion criteria and weighting by actual tradable market capitalization, act as filters that, over time, select the real winners.

For long-term investors, diversification remains the best answer

Major IPOs generate headlines, debates, and sometimes a sense of urgency that can lead to rushed decisions. Investment professionals certainly need to stay informed about these developments. However, for the vast majority of long-term investors, the reality is more reassuring: it is not necessary to closely follow when SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic go public.

The logic is simple. Companies that truly deserve to be in the indexes will eventually be included. And when that happens, a well-constructed indexed portfolio will incorporate them automatically, without any need to act or anticipate.

Certainly, for active investors or those passionate about new technologies, this period may be exciting. But for most investors, chasing IPOs means taking on additional risks (uncertain entry valuations, low initial liquidity, lack of history as public companies) that are rarely compensated with returns superior to the market as a whole. History shows that most retail investors who actively participate in IPOs achieve worse results than those who simply maintain a disciplined indexed strategy.

At inbestMe, we will continue monitoring these developments to better understand market sentiment and extract useful signals. But our philosophy remains unchanged: long-term wealth creation comes from diversification, low costs, and patience — not from trying to board the next train before it leaves the station.

Appendix: a recent case — Cerebras, the largest tech IPO of the year and what it teaches us

Before SpaceX makes its debut, we already have a real and recent case study. On May 14, Cerebras Systems, an AI chipmaker and aspiring Nvidia rival, completed the largest technology IPO of the year in the United States, the biggest since Uber’s 2019 IPO. The company raised $5.55 billion by selling 30 million shares at $185 each, after revising the price upward several times from the initial $115–125 range. Demand exceeded available supply by more than 20 times.

The first trading day under the ticker CBRS looked spectacular on paper: the stock opened at $350 — nearly double the IPO price — and closed at $311, up 68%. Market capitalization approached $95 billion. The following day, the stock fell 10%.

What Cerebras reveals about AI IPOs

The technology is real, but customer concentration is a risk. Eighty-six percent of 2025 revenue came from only two clients linked to the United Arab Emirates. Revenue grew 76% to $510 million, with net income of $88 million, but the foundation remains fragile.

The valuation already prices in a great deal of future growth. At the close of the first day, the stock traded at more than 130 times sales, far above Nvidia’s multiples. The $24.6 billion backlog includes significant contracts with OpenAI and AWS, but only 15% will be recognized during 2026–2027.

The initial “pop” is not profitability for the investor. Anyone who bought at the opening price of $350 and did not sell that same day was already in losses by the end of the next trading session. Debut-day euphoria rarely lasts.

At the time of writing this post, the price has fallen to $256.

Academic history supports caution: according to Professor Jay Ritter of the University of Florida, who has spent decades tracking IPO returns, newly listed companies have underperformed comparable firms by an average of 3.6% annually during their first five years. For IPOs since 2010, the first-year gap is even more pronounced: nearly 9 percentage points below similar non-listed companies.

Cerebras also illustrates the point about indexes: the Nasdaq Composite included it relatively quickly, but the S&P 500 still has not. Investors indexed to the S&P did not participate in the first-day “pop” — nor did they assume its risk.