861–870 of 1001 posts
If I buy the SpaceX stock it's 100% certain to go down. If I don't buy it it will rocket to the moon. Is there some sort of way I can positively monetise this?
Anthropic at $1t for an IPO vs Google at $23b in 2004 sounds insane but Google's revenue at the time was $2.7b while Anthropic's already at $47b, so a valuation at about 20x vs 10x revenue. Anthropic also has very high revenue growth (50x since 2024), it doesn't seems quite as insane as it could be.
That is revenue. What is the net profit?
If the unit economics look great (my understanding is they're at least fine-to-good), then they should not be taking profit because it is very much in their interest to do capex to grow their capacity so that they can continue to grow.
It's a knife's edge because if they invest too aggressively it could lead to bankruptcy, but so far they've actually been quite conservative and given their unit economics they can afford to pay $$$$ for expensive inference compute (and indeed that's why they've inked a bunch of deals in the past month or two)
Maybe to counter some of the apparently widely expected doom and gloom: - bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now. - large scale infrastructure spending tends to be really good for economies. These three companies are creating lots of jobs that are mostly related to construction, energy infrastructure, hardware spending, etc.…
The problem is that you ARE buying them precisely at the high IPO prices if you have retirement/pension funds that are invested in market indexes.
Maybe to counter some of the apparently widely expected doom and gloom: - bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now. - large scale infrastructure spending tends to be really good for economies. These three companies are creating lots of jobs that are mostly related to construction, energy infrastructure, hardware spending, etc.…
I think so too I’m just worried about how unequally these gains will be distributed, for myself I am quite pessimistic thinking that all these gains will not benefit my life, if at all it will move the needle more towards making my expertise and skills easily replaceable by switching human capital for agentic capital. So yeah really happy for Musk to finally make his one millionth million dollars but personally I’m m…
in addition to gain distribution, large chunk of population won't see any gains, but only losses: wealth transfer to Elon and similar from their retirement/investment accounts, their jobs being replaced by AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's wrong. Amazon is worth $2.81T right now and only represents 4.03% of the S&P500. So a $1T share would represent less than 2% of the S&P500. This is significant for a single company, and 6% for 3 shit-tier companies (SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic) is even more significant, but we're far from "losing retirement if they go bust"-levels.
I've recently learned a new finance term, "float", and I want to check if this makes a difference to this discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_float I hear S&P 500 is weighted on float rather than on market cap, while Nasdaq 100 is based on market cap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which, again, benefits the wealthy and well-informed and well-connected. The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.
I suppose everyone reading this thread counts as "well-informed" then, right? All I have to do is move my 401k into the bond-heavy fund right now and then back into the stock-heavy one when everything craters is what I'm hearing. It's what you're doing, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no crystal ball, but I feel uneasy when they change basic rules about indizes right before these IPOs. There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact. Maybe big tech gambled too close to the sun and found a way out? Whether something pops or not, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth this can be done so easily, don't you think?
> There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact 1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio. 2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total port…
From Matt Levine’s column today: > The index demand is not 100% of the stock available in the IPO, or 110%, or even 50%. But it’s plausibly more than 25%. It’s not a short squeeze, but it’s a lot. Add a reported 30% allocation to retail, and arguably a majority of the IPO is being sold to price-insensitive investors. That is one way to get a high IPO price.
Do the indexes have some capacity to defer / waive buying into new stocks if they judge it in the interests of investors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been told the following (obviously negative) narrative. Can someone verify/refute some of these? I've put (?) next to questionable claims. 1. Twitter is purchased with debt 2. Debt is transferred to xAI via acquisition of X/Twitter 3. Debt is further transferred to SpaceX via acquisition of xAI 4. SpaceX IPO offered at extreme valuation 5. Index fund inclusion rules waived for SpaceX IPO: profitability requireme…
6. Pension funds tend not to exclusively hold index funds. Individual retail investors do in their 401ks or personally. Pension funds tend to be fairly sophisticated and can easily insulate themselves from SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic if they want either by owning index funds and shorting the other companies or by not purchasing the stock. Also, pension funds are immune to (9) as taxes are handled differently for them. 7.…
> ETF managers that track an index aren't allowed to put discretion into what they buy.
I detect a contradiction here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like straight up fraud? Presumably all to bail out early investors?
And if it's not fraud, it's fascism
Words have lost all meanings.