Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're forgetting that whenever the incentives lead to bad places it isn't True Capitalism (tm).
True Capitalism looks a lot more like socialism than many would like to admit.
reap the profits, socialize the losses
SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
261–270 of 638 posts
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
The S&P committee never said they would. Space X asked and the committee said no. They should not have asked.
#1 rule of sales. If someone is trying to sell you something, you _probably_ don't want it. Eg, they need the sale more than you do. The very fact that they were asking the question is such a huge red flag.
I've started telling basically that to the solar salesmen who come by every few days: if it was so great, you wouldn't have to pretend to be from PG&E or tell a bunch of half-truths about how utilities work.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits that specify which stocks are eligible, unless someone really big and lucrative comes along, in which case it's whatever and we'll just adjust the rules to make them eligible"?
Isn’t that how capitalism works in general? Edit: thanks for the downvotes. Defenders of capitalism unite!!! lol. Free market right?
[dead]
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's your pick?
I’m not who you replied to but that’s honestly an interesting question. Genghis Khan? Jesus, I suppose? Elon Musk is probably up there, though. You could say people like Henry Ford are on his level, but Elon is certainly more broad in his scope. I think people like them are probably accelerationists, meaning someone else would have done what they’ve done eventually. That could be a long eventually though. It’s hard t…
You'd probably want to be more precise regarding "important for what" as well. And the philosophical angle: if the person hadn't existed, would someone else have slotted in to take their place? Is the impact measured in years/decades, because the overall historical forces were heading in a direction anyway?
Is it like trying to say "the most important bacterium in a petri dish"?
Without diminishing the impact that Musk has had, I'm fairly certain that Musk isn't the answer. And either way, the intent of saying that Musk is the most important person in history I'm fairly certain wasn't a very grounded decision. I'm sure it was more an expression of reverence and fealty.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#265The worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules for the Nasdaq 100. The index fast-tracked SpaceX stock for inclusion 15 days after the IPO, instead of the normal three-month seasoning period. They also changed its 10% minimum float rule to a 3x weighting boost for low-float stockss. So many people will unwillingly and prematurely invest into SpaceX, before it has any chance to discover its re…
So, the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits that specify which stocks are eligible, unless someone really big and lucrative comes along, in which case it's whatever and we'll just adjust the rules to make them eligible"?
Not quite, you can get them changed if you’re willing to announce to everyone that your stock is wildly overvalued and is going to crash.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
True capitalism has never been tried. This right now is crony capitalism.
Ah yes, because capitalism in it's purest form would never have companies form monopolies and lobby governments for favorable legislation.
Where does capitalism mandate corruption? Yes, it is not realistic to assume there is no corruption, but capitalism in and by itself does not mandate corruption.
Obviously this all falls apart when capitalism can buy legislation. We are seeing how the USA is currently eroded by a few oligarchs.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#267The worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules for the Nasdaq 100. The index fast-tracked SpaceX stock for inclusion 15 days after the IPO, instead of the normal three-month seasoning period. They also changed its 10% minimum float rule to a 3x weighting boost for low-float stockss. So many people will unwillingly and prematurely invest into SpaceX, before it has any chance to discover its re…
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#268Isn't it realistically only worth talking about SpaceX stock a few years out? The random walk the stock will do after an IPO seems very uninformative.
This is about a bond issue - a large drop in value there so soon after issue is far more unusual and much worse news.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
True capitalism has never been tried. This right now is crony capitalism.
Ah yes, because capitalism in it's purest form would never have companies form monopolies and lobby governments for favorable legislation.
Is there even a government under true capitalism or is it more like the lunar anarchy described in „the moon is a harsh mistress“?
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#270The worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules for the Nasdaq 100. The index fast-tracked SpaceX stock for inclusion 15 days after the IPO, instead of the normal three-month seasoning period. They also changed its 10% minimum float rule to a 3x weighting boost for low-float stockss. So many people will unwillingly and prematurely invest into SpaceX, before it has any chance to discover its re…
So, the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits that specify which stocks are eligible, unless someone really big and lucrative comes along, in which case it's whatever and we'll just adjust the rules to make them eligible"?
"Lucrative" is not really the word you are looking for.