Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s like 90% of this site. Roll with it.
It’s not and I won’t
You’re doing pretty good!
Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
201–208 of 208 posts
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. I’ve had an IRA and 401k since I was 21 and I’m 59 now (but still feel as smart as a 21 year old). I doubt I’ll see my lifetime of investment go up in smoke, just a big hill: up super high for a few years and then back to 2024 levels by 2030.
> I’m 59 now (but still feel as smart as a 21 year old) Any tips?
I meant that as a pejorative self burn. :/
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the examples I provided are due to differing country codes; their site fails to recognize things like Alphabet trading on a Mexican stock exchange is still the same company: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL.MX/ $GOOGL.MX scoring differently than other $GOOGL listings makes me extremely skeptical that humans are diligently creating these scores (finance professionals should've recognized that secondary li…
Scores on different exchanges may be due to varying behavior by international subsidiaries -- MSFT in Australia may be doing something objectionable that MSFT US does not do, for example. I'm not sure though. What I think is more likely is that it's a dumb oversight in the web app and/or data - maybe an intern stubbed out international stocks and it got pushed to production
> international subsidiaries
Secondary listings allow entire companies to trade on multiple exchanges (not just corresponding subsidiaries)
So I agree that it was likely just a mistake to list multiple listings of the same companies, but the fact that they usually receive different scores proves their process isn't diligent:
* $GOOGL.MX is dinged for multiple non-Mexico-specific violations that the other listing isn't
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scores on different exchanges may be due to varying behavior by international subsidiaries -- MSFT in Australia may be doing something objectionable that MSFT US does not do, for example. I'm not sure though. What I think is more likely is that it's a dumb oversight in the web app and/or data - maybe an intern stubbed out international stocks and it got pushed to production
> international subsidiaries Secondary listings allow entire companies to trade on multiple exchanges (not just corresponding subsidiaries) So I agree that it was likely just a mistake to list multiple listings of the same companies, but the fact that they usually receive different scores proves their process isn't diligent: * $GOOGL.MX is dinged for multiple non-Mexico-specific violations that the other listing isn'…
I think there's 2 sides of the company:
- (1) Insight scores
- (2) ETF management
I think the pipeline between (1) and (2) is probably tight within the company (probably a few big Excel spreadsheets) and the (2) side has a lot of brains.
But the (1) side needs to do more work on the pipeline between those spreadsheets and the Web, and maybe hire more/better software dev help for that. They'd do better to use Postgres as their source of truth.
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> international subsidiaries Secondary listings allow entire companies to trade on multiple exchanges (not just corresponding subsidiaries) So I agree that it was likely just a mistake to list multiple listings of the same companies, but the fact that they usually receive different scores proves their process isn't diligent: * $GOOGL.MX is dinged for multiple non-Mexico-specific violations that the other listing isn'…
I think there's 2 sides of the company: - (1) Insight scores - (2) ETF management I think the pipeline between (1) and (2) is probably tight within the company (probably a few big Excel spreadsheets) and the (2) side has a lot of brains. But the (1) side needs to do more work on the pipeline between those spreadsheets and the Web, and maybe hire more/better software dev help for that. They'd do better to use Postgres…
> (1) Insight scores
> (2) ETF management
(1) seems like their (stated) differentiator itself; plenty of organizations already offer ETFs that omit selected companies
I doubt their data is cleaner internally than it is on their website. They're bringing in millions annually from their expense ratios:
https://www.inspireetf.com/etfs
and overpromising/underdelivering on their ability to diligently deliver (1)
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is valued by what people are willing to pay for it.
The myth of the stock market was that value was tied to the performance or potential of the company whose ownership you were taking a part of.
Value is tied to how people assess value. They used to assess it on the performance or potential of the company whose ownership you were taking a part of. Now speculation plays a much bigger role. This seems predictably correlated with distance to last deep crash.
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#207I want to buy options against QQQ so badly -- but Tesla has traded at a crazy multiple of revenue/profits for a very long time, so I'm wondering if Elon/AI hype will keep these stocks high longer than I want to pay the risk premium for (options).
I'm with you on this. I think the market bubble can stay alive and well a lot longer than you can survive an open short position. I think we're still a ways away from CEOs admitting that AI actually can't cut the cost of human capital in half.
> can stay alive and well a lot longer than you can survive an open short position.
I mean let's look at bitcoin/crypto.
Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market can stay insane longer than you can stay solvent. In the short term the market is a popularity machine but in the long term it is a weighing machine.
If the scales are only checked after the heat death of the universe, does it even matter? If the market can’t actually detect crooks and charlatans until long after they have stolen investors money, its ability to be “correct” is worthless.
> If the scales are only checked after the heat death of the universe, does it even matter?
This is the kind of thinking that points to that reckoning moment being close.
This and people buying stock with borrowed money*