Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry what does the magnolia thing mean?
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
That’s making me sign in?
SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
331–340 of 638 posts
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
#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.
problem with solar is that in itself it is great, but here in US if you look at the cost per watt produced it is heavily inflated with permitting and marketing costs. which is basically their margins till it becomes barely profitable to you. otherwise most of solar system cost has been fallen quite a bit for last decade plus.
dont believe me, look up how much a open loop DIY system costs.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're confident the price of bananas will fall tomorrow you absolutely can sign a contract to deliver bananas next week at the current price and then buy them when the price drops...
Yes, you can but does that ability benefit the population/nation/market as a whole?
Well yes, to the extent the possibility to do that helps stop silly price spikes from a very short term shortage of bananas.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that how capitalism works in general? Edit: thanks for the downvotes. Defenders of capitalism unite!!! lol. Free market right?
The beauty of capitalism is you have a choice. There are already ETFs that exclude SpaceX/Elon's company's for those who so desire. See QQNE and SPNE.
In practice the choices tend to be limited for a lot of the people for whom this rule change was meant to ensnare their money because it exists within 401k plans with limited portfolio options.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#335The 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…
Idk, I kinda agree with Matt Levine. The purpose of these ETFs is conceptually to track the "largest X companies", so including SPCX is just staying true to that. If there's an issue I think it's earlier in the IPO pipeline.
The indices driving the market are the problem.
Index investing is too high a percentage of total investing so the rules matter to the whole market.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#336Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#33710% drop 1 month after IPO is normal for a stock. It doesn't mean it's heading for junk bond status.
Stocks and bonds are different things, and the bond issue is separate from the IPO. Both are ways for companies to raise money, SpaceX did both. This thread's nominally about the bond, but for some reason everyone's talking about the stock.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#338The 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…
Idk, I kinda agree with Matt Levine. The purpose of these ETFs is conceptually to track the "largest X companies", so including SPCX is just staying true to that. If there's an issue I think it's earlier in the IPO pipeline.
But if SpaceX valuation drops by 2/3 before settling into a steady state, does that not mean that SpaceX is not one of the "largest X companies" but rather was overvalued?
The entire reason for these seasoning periods is to give the market time to determine what the company is actually worth to the market itself. Bypassing those rules to get it in earlier says to me that they don't believe it will settle at a price near its start.
If I IPO my lemonade stand at $1T valuation do I deserve to be in that "largest X companies" list? Or does it only make sense if I can maintain that valuation over time?
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're confident the price of bananas will fall tomorrow you absolutely can sign a contract to deliver bananas next week at the current price and then buy them when the price drops...
Yes, you can but does that ability benefit the population/nation/market as a whole?
Yes, because the guy buying your bananas is able to make banana-buying decisions for next week based on the price you give him.
You’re not going to make up a silly low number because you actually have to buy the bananas yourself at some point, and you help price discovery because now that guy isn’t buying bananas at a higher price than someone is willing to sell them for.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claimed that he would unearth billions of dollars of government fraud, only to lie about that too. Instead his team cut aid programs and have contributed to an estimated 700,000 deaths so far. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/the-...
[flagged]
Maybe we should have elected Hillary Clinton then?
(This is a reference to Bill Clinton's extremely successful "Reinventing Government" initiative which actually balanced the federal budget until the next republican came along...)