The Biggest IPOs in History -- and How They Performed

The article previews SpaceX’s expected June 11 pricing, targeting a $75 billion raise at $135 per share for a $1.75 trillion valuation, which would make it the largest IPO ever by proceeds and market cap at listing. It compares SpaceX with prior record-setting U.S.-listed IPOs, noting many of them had strong initial hype but later suffered significant post-IPO weakness before longer-term recoveries. The piece is primarily a historical IPO roundup and sentiment piece rather than a direct market catalyst.

Analysis

The market takeaway is not that mega-IPOs are automatically bad; it is that price discovery is weakest when a company arrives with a narrative premium far ahead of verifiable cash-flow durability. That tends to create a two-step trade: a strong first-print driven by scarcity and benchmark buying, then a multi-quarter reset once lockup expiration, post-deal supply, and reduced story momentum meet the reality of slower monetization. In other words, the risk is less about the day-one tape and more about the 3-12 month window when consensus ownership becomes crowded but fundamentals are still “show me.”

That framework favors businesses with clear monetization paths and recurring demand over the purest sentiment names. Among the tickers here, V and GM look like the cleaner expressions of post-IPO normalization: both have already survived the initial narrative-to-fundamental transition and are less vulnerable to valuation compression from growth disappointment. By contrast, RIVN and, to a lesser extent, BABA remain more exposed to the market’s tendency to punish any gap between implied scale and near-term operating execution; RIVN is especially vulnerable because EV demand is now more rate- and subsidy-sensitive than it was at the height of the 2021 enthusiasm.

A second-order angle is index and passive-flow mechanics. A mega-listing like this forces benchmark buyers and liquidity providers to absorb large float additions, which can temporarily depress neighboring names in the same factor bucket as capital rotates to fund the deal. That is most relevant for high-duration tech and unprofitable growth, while cash-generative platforms with similar investor bases can actually benefit once the market re-rates what is scarce: durable margins, not headline valuation size.

The contrarian view is that consensus is underestimating how quickly a successful debut can become a positioning trap. If the new issue clears well, underexposed funds may chase for weeks, but that can be faded once implied multiples migrate from “scarcity” to “comparable.” The better expression is not to short the IPO headline blindly, but to buy the businesses that can absorb new issuance gravity while selling the ones whose valuation is still anchored to peak sentiment.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Short RIVN on any IPO-style hype rebound; tactical horizon 2-6 weeks. Risk/reward improves if the stock approaches prior resistance on elevated volume, with downside reopening toward prior lows if growth guidance disappoints.
• Overweight V vs. RIVN for a relative-value basket over the next 3-6 months. V has cleaner cash-flow visibility and less valuation fragility; the pair benefits if the market reprices duration risk downward.
• Hold/accumulate GM on weakness over the next 1-3 months. It is a lower-beta way to express that the market rewards companies that already absorbed their IPO/reorganization discount and can compound through cycle noise.
• Avoid chasing any first-day strength in mega-listings; wait 30-60 trading days for lockup/supply overhang to clear before initiating longs. Historically this is where the best entry point appears once initial scarcity premium fades.
• If forced to express the theme directly, use a barbell: long META or V as post-IPO winners with durable monetization, short the weakest post-offering speculative growth name in the basket (RIVN). Target 1.5-2.0x downside-to-upside on the pair over 1-2 quarters.