"Very Intentional": Steve Eisman Thinks Anthropic Is Hiding Something

Submitted by QTR's Fringe FinanceSteve Eisman, the investor made famous by The Big Short for recognizing the subprime mortgage disaster before much of Wall Street, is now accusing Anthropic of deliberately withholding its latest quarterly financial statements from investors ahead of its potentially $2 trillion IPO.Speaking Wednesday on Prof G Markets, Eisman questioned why Anthropic’s October 26 prospectus contained financial statements only through June, despite more recent information suggesting the company’s explosive growth may already be losing momentum, according to the podcast and Yahoo.Asked whether he believed the omission was deliberate, Eisman answered: “Only very intentional.”That’s a pretty serious allegation, particularly coming from somebody whose reputation was built on recognizing financial absurdities that the rest of Wall Street was perfectly content to ignore. And it dovetails almost perfectly with what I’ve been arguing about the AI bubble for months.On September 29, I published It’s Official: The AI Emperor Has No Clothes, examining Anthropic’s extraordinary losses, its enormous infrastructure commitments, and the growing disconnect between the enthusiasm in AI equities and the warnings emerging from credit markets.My argument then was that investors were beginning to get their first meaningful look at the financial machinery behind the AI boom, and what they were discovering wasn’t particularly encouraging.Now Eisman is suggesting that even this picture may be considerably rosier than the company’s latest numbers would indicate.According to Reuters figures discussed by Eisman, Anthropic’s quarterly revenue growth decelerated from 144% in the second quarter to 45% in the third. That’s still spectacular growth by ordinary standards, but for a company seeking a valuation approaching $2 trillion, a slowdown of that magnitude deserves considerably more scrutiny than it’s getting.More concerning is the apparent deterioration in the economics of generating that revenue. Eisman says Anthropic produced $2.08 in revenue for every dollar spent on computing and infrastructure during the second quarter. In the third quarter, that figure dropped to $1.70, a decline of approximately 18%.In other words, compute spending went from consuming roughly 48 cents of every revenue dollar to nearly 59 cents in just three months.That’s not exactly the direction you’d hope to see from a company about to IPO, whose valuation depends on the assumption that scaling its technology will eventually produce extraordinary profitability.Eisman believes part of the explanation is the fading of what he calls “tokenmaxing,” a period when businesses encouraged employees to consume enormous quantities of AI computing resources without worrying much about the bill.As corporate customers began paying closer attention to costs, spending apparently became more disciplined. Meanwhile, increasingly competitive Chinese AI models have introduced another potential headache: downward pressure on pricing.If Eisman’s interpretation is correct, the industry may be discovering that customers love AI a whole lot more when somebody else is paying for it.And that’s a problem when you’ve already committed to building enough computing infrastructure to power a small civilization.Eisman estimates Anthropic’s potential future computing commitments could total between $800 billion and $900 billion, depending on which agreements are counted.The company’s filing reportedly identifies at least $110 billion in commitments involving Amazon, another $114.5 billion associated with Google’s infrastructure, and $161.2 billion in equipment lease payments involving Broadcom.That’s nearly $386 billion across just those arrangements, although the agreements span different periods and aren’t equivalent to debt payable immediately.The precise total matters less than the fundamental problem: Anthropic needs an astonishing amount of future revenue to make these commitments economically sensible.And as I pointed out in September, this isn’t just an Anthropic problem.Oracle’s credit default swaps had been surging, long-dated borrowing costs were climbing, and CDS trading across major AI-related companies was exploding. Nvidia’s single-name CDS trading volume, for example, had reportedly increased from approximately $640 million to $6.9 billion between consecutive six-month periods.Meanwhile, lower-quality corporate credit was already showing signs of stress, with yields on CCC-rated and lower bonds exceeding 16% in late September.None of these indicators independently proves an AI collapse is coming. But taken together, they suggest lenders and credit investors are increasingly questioning the economics of the infrastructure boom even as equity investors continue pricing in years of extraordinary growth.Now we’re getting another potential warning from the operating numbers themselves.And what makes Eisman’s criticism especially interesting is that he isn’t merely questioning Anthropic’s valuation. He’s questioning whether the financial statements investors have been given adequately reflect the company’s current trajectory.There is an important caveat here: excluding third-quarter statements from a preliminary prospectus doesn’t automatically mean Anthropic has done anything improper. IPO filings are routinely amended, and the company may need to provide updated financials before completing its offering.85% OFF FOREVER IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TODAY: I am again offering an 85% discount to anyone that wants to become a Fringe Finance annual subscriber today. It’s a discount you can keep and stays applied for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber: Get 85% off foreverBut Eisman’s broader concern remains legitimate. If newer figures reveal materially weaker growth and deteriorating computing economics, investors should want to see them before deciding what the company is worth.Especially when we’re talking about a business with hundreds of billions of dollars in future commitments and a valuation that leaves precious little room for disappointment.For years, the AI bull case has relied on the idea that today’s extraordinary expenditures will eventually be dwarfed by tomorrow’s extraordinary profits. Now, the accounting is getting…interesting…The Dirty Accounting Behind The AI BubbleI’m not disputing the technological significance of AI, nor am I suggesting Anthropic can’t eventually build a highly profitable business.But technological importance and attractive investment economics are two entirely different things, and Wall Street has a remarkable history of confusing the former with the latter.What concerns me is the possibility that the industry is approaching the point where revenue growth begins normalizing long before infrastructure spending does.That would leave companies with enormous contractual obligations, assets depreciating rapidly, increasingly aggressive competitors, and investors who have already priced in something close to perfection.And if those economics deteriorate, the consequences won’t necessarily stop with Anthropic. They could ripple through the hyperscalers, chipmakers, infrastructure developers, creditors, and the broader market that has become so dependent on the AI investment narrative.When Eisman was asked whether he’d participate in Anthropic’s IPO, his response was unequivocal: “No.”I’m not suggesting anybody should automatically follow him. But I do think his concerns deserve serious attention, particularly given how closely they align with the financial and credit-market warning signs I’ve been highlighting.Because the question is no longer simply whether AI will transform the world.It’s whether the companies spending hundreds of billions of dollars to make that transformation happen can generate sufficient returns before the bills come due.And if Eisman is right about what Anthropic’s missing quarter might reveal, we may be getting closer to finding out.The AI emperor may not just be missing his clothes. He may be trying to get his IPO done before investors realize it.You can watch Eisman’s full interview here.QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and very often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning, meaning if I’m long I could sell or if I’m short I could cover at any time. Positions can change immediately. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning.I also may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and own things I’m bearish on. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any or all facts and figures included in this article though I made an effort to get them right. I have been wrong before and will be wrong again, and encourage you to always double check, do your own research and speak to a licensed financial professional, which I am not.Contributor posts, guest posts and curated posts have been hand selected by me, but have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author or reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.Since 2026, I have been making an attempt to no longer actively trade as much as I once did (read my story here). In an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from most fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.My goal is for my investing/saving to be done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything, at any point.You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. Again, I get shit wrong a lot, both in the market and in life, but am trying my best. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. Hence, I am a writer. I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. Many times I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Thanks, you’ve been a great crowd and don’t forget to tip your servers.