Blackstone’s new forecast
Anthropic is expected to receive a rating in the higher ‘junk’ category from rating agencies after its initial public offering. The forecast is attributed to the Financial Times, which cites what Blackstone — an anchor investor in a recent $63 billion transaction intended to finance the artificial intelligence company’s chips — reportedly told investors involved in the deal.
The novel element is not only the expected rating but the investor’s change of position: according to the FT, Blackstone had previously indicated the opposite, namely an investment-grade rating — that is, low risk for lenders — before 2027. Now the expectation would instead be for a rating in the ‘double B’ range, the highest level of the speculative category.
Why the rating matters for financing
Blackstone’s forecast remains a prediction, as the material itself stresses. The indicated consequences, however, are concrete: a high speculative rating would make it harder and more expensive for Anthropic to obtain the resources needed to sustain the spending that has so far underpinned its business model.
The point ties in with what has been reported about the company’s recent activity, which over the past year is said to have accumulated large-scale agreements for computing capacity, fueling investor concerns. Against this backdrop, the agencies’ judgment becomes an indicator of the relationship between industrial ambition and financial sustainability: an expected downgrade does not change the strategy, but it affects the price of the capital needed to pursue it.
It is worth distinguishing the plans: on the one hand, the debt raising linked to the chips transaction; on the other, the equity offering. The first depends directly on the agencies’ judgment; the second, although not determined by it, must reckon with the perception of risk that this judgment helps to shape.
The IPO picture and the open questions
Anthropic officially filed the documentation for its listing at the beginning of the week, according to reports, opening a period of speculation about the impact an IPO of this size could have on the entire artificial intelligence sector. The rating forecast therefore comes at a time when the company is already under market scrutiny.
Several aspects remain to be verified. The forecast is attributed to an investor and reported by the press, not to a rating agency: it is therefore not an issued judgment, nor is it known when any rating would be assigned. The material does not indicate the details of the 63 billion transaction or the company's overall financial condition. It should also be noted that, according to the account, both Anthropic and Blackstone declined to comment to TechCrunch.
In summary, there are three established facts: the expectation of a speculative “double B” rating according to the FT, the reversal from the previous investment-grade indication attributed to Blackstone, and the filing of the listing application. The implications for the cost of fundraising are plausible and indicated by the source, but will depend on the agencies' actual assessments, which are not currently available.
