Earlier quoted context omitted.
magnolia1234 bypass-paywalls-clean https://archive.is/tnSeY
The fact that this works by exploiting AMP is delicious.
Really slick!
SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
351–360 of 638 posts
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#352Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#353I can't comprehend for the life of me that people put their life savings in what Elon Musk is doing. Are people not seeing how he's lying about the future all the time? He said he aimed to have 5000 Optimus robots out by end of 2025, 50000 by 2026 and 10 times that in 2027. He promised in 2015 that full autonomous driving would arrive in 2 years and we aren't there yet 11 years later. He even said in 2016 that there…
His success is like the best case study in the world of how our current economic system is solely for the benefit of a privileged few.
He is obviously a liar, a conman and morally suspect. But he has mastered the art of lying in a way that people want to believe. So much so that he can separate fools from their money to the tune of billions.
When you can do that, every economic institution on the planet wants a piece. It's a firehouse of ill gotten cash, and those supporting his staggering rise to power are there to grab a bit of filthy lucre for themselves. It's a wealth transfer than comes along maybe only a few times in a generation.
Everyone knows he's a complete fraud even as they enable him to pull off all these stunts.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#354Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 n…
But then you're trying to time the market which goes against the passiveness approach that most people sign up to when they buy these sort of ETFs.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
quick search: https://www.justetf.com/uk/search.html?search=ETFS&assetClas...
ok, who is forced to buy these ETFs? These are all products that people and funds can choose to buy or not buy.
The problem is a lot of passive investors own large quantities of that ETF, and to take their money out now they have to pay a tax penalty, so they are forced to invest in SPCX due to the rule change.
Its also a matter of principle. They had a seasoning period to allow for market price discovery over time, and they created a process to waive it for one company. Its not unreasonable to say that that is a bad thing.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#357The 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.
I think a lot of people are upset that they bought something (an ETF or fund that tracks an index, for which has various rules for what gets included) and those rules get broken so the wealthiest man in the world who is also extremely close with the President of the US can get his company included on a shorter timeline. Yes, there's an issue with the IPO process but a) you can just buy SPCX if you wanted exposure b) even if it's not included you're getting decent exposure and c) the IPO process being broken is not the problem of the indexer.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#358Earlier 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"?
"Lucrative" is not really the word you are looking for.
"Honest"
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#359A stupid/naive question. Why does this affect SpaceX? They have their money(The IPO) Any third party trading value does not change that. Sure there may be individuals, officers of SpaceX who hold these instruments who will be negatively affective, but the company itself? My best guess, it makes it harder to get loans in the future.
Companies need to raise money for investment. Even Apple doesn’t have cash for all the things they want to do. Suppose they want to lease or buy a piece of real estate.
Apple has a giant pile of cash and the last time they issued bonds was to do a stock buyback so that might not be the best example, although there's a fairly small number of companies in their unique position.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true: Depending on product and regulatory regime, for distinct trader/customer groups there may be distinct rules. And if you are buying an instrument where you can lose more than you invested, the approach maybe wrong? :-)
> And if you are buying an instrument where you can lose more than you invested, the approach maybe wrong? :-) This is precisely why shorting can lose more than you "invest", because you're not buying an instrument, you're selling it with the intent (or promise, depending on what kind of instrument it is) to buy it back later, hopefully at a lower price. The risk is unbounded.
dang all these comments make me want to short more. gimmie your monies!
a company who says we'll have ai in space, meanwhile you can stick ai in the ocean and use ocean water to cool & still have access for upgrade cycles.
meanwhile china and japan and bezos all landing reusable rockets.
meanwhile maybe ai runs locally on phones (today's announcement of deepseek in the iphone in china)
ummmm. short in force!