How much do markets value Open AI?

By Ben_West🔸 @ 2023-05-14T19:28 (+39)

Summary: A BOTEC indicates that Open AI might have been valued at 220-430x their annual recurring revenue, which is high but not unheard of. Various factors make this multiple hard to interpret, but it generally does not seem consistent with investors believing that Open AI will capture revenue consistent with creating transformative AI.

Overview

Epistemic status: revenue multiples are intended as a rough estimate of how much investors believe a company is going to grow, and I would be surprised if my estimated revenue multiple was off by more than a factor of 5. But the "strategic considerations" portion of this is a bunch of wild guesses that I feel much less confident about.

  1. There has been some discussion about how much markets are expecting transformative AI, e.g. here. One obvious question is "why isn't Open AI valued at a kajillion dollars?"
  2. I estimate that Microsoft's investment implicitly valued OAI at 220-430x their annual recurring revenue. This is high - average multiples are around 7x, but some pharmaceutical companies have multiples > 1000x.[1] This would seem to support the argument that investors think that OAI is exceptional (but not "equivalent to the Industrial Revolution" exceptional[2]).
  3. However, Microsoft received a set of benefits from the deal which make the EV multiple overstated. Based on adjustments, I can see the actual implied multiple being anything from -2,200x to 3,200x.
    1. (Negative multiples imply that Microsoft got more value from access to OAI models than the amount they invested and are therefore willing to treat their investment as a liability rather than an asset.)
  4. One particularly confusing fact is that OAI's valuation appears to have gone from $14 billion in 2021 to $19 billion in 2023. Even ignoring anything about transformative AI, I would have expected that the success of ChatGPT etc. should have resulted in a more than a 35% increase.
  5. Qualitatively, my guess is that this was a nice but not exceptional deal for OAI, and I feel confused why they took it. One possible explanation is “the kind of people who can deploy $10B of capital are institutionally incapable of investing at > 200x revenue multiples”, which doesn’t seem crazy to me. Another explanation is that this is basically guaranteeing them a massive customer (Microsoft), and they are willing to give up some stock to get that customer.
  6. Squiggle model here
  7. It would be cool if someone did a similar write up about Anthropic, although publicly available information on them is slim. My guess is that they will have an even higher revenue multiple (maybe infinite? I'm not sure if they had revenue when they first raised).

Details

I received a number of helpful comments on a draft of this, particularly from two anonymous reviewers.

  1. ^

    Thanks to Pat Myron for this link.

  2. ^

    Someone asked: do we have any historical examples of companies growing enough to actually get a 100x return at this scale? I think there are some, though not many: Saudi Aramco IPO’d at $1.88T, almost exactly 100 times OAI’s $19B valuation.  


Pat Myron @ 2023-05-14T20:52 (+8)

There are public biotech companies with ~$10B valuations and higher price/sales ratios: https://finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=121&f=cap_midover&o=-ps

And private valuations are much more generous than public valuations

Ben_West @ 2023-05-14T23:00 (+1)

Amazing, thanks! I will update the post appropriately.

Hauke Hillebrandt @ 2023-05-15T09:51 (+4)

Private R&D cannot be protected perfectly because patents expire or industry know-how diffuses to other firms and not all rents from investments can be captured. There was a leaked memo out of Google recently that said that Open source foundation models are very good and don't need much compute to run. Recently, OpenAI's CEO Altman has often highlighted that their models are not based on any one fundamental technical breakthrough, but thousands of little hacks from tinkering- but perhaps this is wrong and a strategic statement to boost the valuation of the company. 

Hauke Hillebrandt @ 2023-05-17T21:47 (+2)

Relatedly: "without the gains of stocks that are possible AI winners, the S&P 500 would now be down 2 per cent this year, rather than up 8 per cent." https://archive.ph/KFMJU

This might suggest that the gains from AI might be distributed more evenly amongst different Big Tech companies and that economies of scope are more important than relatively small technical leads.

yefreitor @ 2023-05-14T23:21 (+4)

A BOTEC indicates that Open AI might have been valued at >200x their annual recurring revenue, which is by far the highest multiple I can find evidence of for a company of that size. This seems consistent with the view that markets think OAI will be exceptional, but not “equivalent to the Industrial Revolution” exceptional, and a variety of factors make this multiple hard to interpret.

I would be very cautious about trying to extract information from private valuations, especially at this still somewhat early stage. Private markets are far less efficient than public ones, large funding rounds are less efficient still, and large funding rounds led by the organization that controls your infrastructure might as well be poker games. 

Ben_West @ 2023-05-15T13:05 (+2)

Agreed that it's hard to precisely interpret private valuations, but if e.g. we knew for certainty that OAI would be valued at $1T 10 years from now, it's hard to imagine their round closing for $19B today. So this places some bounds on investor expectations of future growth.

Marcel D @ 2023-05-14T22:39 (+3)

One particularly confusing fact is that OAI's valuation appears to have gone from $14 billion in 2021 to $19 billion in 2023. Even ignoring anything about transformative AI, I would have expected that the success of ChatGPT etc. should have resulted in a more than a 35% increase.

I've frequently seen people fail to consider the fact that potential competitors (including borderline copycats) can significantly undermine the profitability of one company's technology, even if the technology could generate substantial revenue. Are you taking this into account?

Ben_West @ 2023-05-14T23:15 (+4)

I have not done a formal analysis, but yes, even given the possibility of copycats I still feel like the unexpected success of ChatGPT should have resulted in more than a 35% increase to their value.

Davidsk @ 2023-06-19T07:24 (+3)

Yes, absolutely! It's important to recognize and account for the potential impact of competitors, including those who may closely replicate a company's technology or offerings. Competition in the market can indeed pose a significant threat to the profitability of a company, regardless of how promising its technology might be. Even if a technology has the potential to generate substantial revenue, if competitors emerge with similar or even slightly different solutions, it can lead to a loss of market share and decreased profitability.

Greg_Colbourn @ 2023-05-14T20:04 (+2)

Re revenue, $200M is only 833k paid subscribers using chatGPT with GPT-4 (it's $20/month). This seems like a massive underestimate.

Ben_West @ 2023-05-14T23:22 (+4)

It looks to me like paid subscriptions were not available in January? But regardless: if they have 100M MAUs then 833k paid would be ~1% of their user base which doesn't seem crazy to me?

I would love better numbers here though, if you have them.

Greg_Colbourn @ 2023-05-15T10:05 (+2)

Paid subscriptions started with the official release of GPT-4 (March). 100M is likely a significant underestimate now, I don't think the user-base saturated there. This say 1B users (but doesn't seem that credible). Also 1% seems kind of low when the GPT-4 answers are significantly better (I guess you can also get GPT-4 for free on Bing though). I'd be surprised if there were <10M paid subscribers (c.f. Netflix and Spotify with ~200M each).

Ben_West @ 2023-05-15T13:21 (+4)

Cool, I think you know this but: revenue multiples are by definition based on historical data; since the round closed before March it by definition could not have included ChatGPT Pro subscriptions.

I'm sure Open AI tried to convince its investors that it was on the verge of making a bunch of money, and maybe investors believed them, who knows. I think it could be useful to redo this analysis under that assumption, if someone wants to. It does seem weird that they are supposedly only forecasting $200 million in revenue this year if they are plausibly getting more than that from just ChatGPT.