Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

Post by sensanaty » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 12:57 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #58

ggm wrote: post #14

An interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests…

If SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized. The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 y…

Post by petilon » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 1:04 AM UTC

richwater wrote: post #54

petilon wrote: post #49

SpaceX is being valued as an AI company and yet they don't have a frontier AI model. Goldman Sachs is predicting 100x growth in 4 years for xAI, but it is a failed company with no frontier model. Top employees have left, and the company is renting out datacenter capacity. Satellite launch business has $4.1 billion in revenue, but only growing 8% annually. Most of the revenue is from Starlink. It has $11.4 billion in…

[flagged]

Post by kyleee » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 1:09 AM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #53

dehrmann wrote: post #33

Matt Levine's take was essentially that if you're in the index fund game, you want the market. You don't pick and choose what parts of the market you want--that's active management. SPCX mostly isn't an issue because most indices include the float in the weight, so it isn't really even a $1T company.

The problem isn’t that you’re invested in the index. The problem is that the index decided it wanted to change its rules to include companies that are not profitable. I still remember the days when you needed to be profitable for x quarters and have a minimum amount of float to be listed in an index. That changed overnight and we all know why.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 1:12 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #37

loeg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevant indices (S&P500, Vanguard) buy in proportion to available float -- i.e., its market cap is weighted by 5%. Only Nasdaq 100 ignores float, stupidly, but almost no money, especially 401(k) money, is in that.

Oh there are ETFs that track Nasdaq 100.

Post by asdff » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #58

ggm wrote: post #14

An interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests…

If SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized. The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 y…