Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 638 posts

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#461

Post by kevstev »

wg0 wrote: post #371
elbasti wrote: post #348

Here's what this means for SpaceX for those of you uninitiated in bond-math: 1. SpaceX issued long-term bonds whose coupon (ie, "interest rate") was 6.5%. 2. Those bonds are now trading for less than their face value. That means that if you buy one of those bonds on the secondary market, you will get a return (yield) of 7.387% (if the price of a bond goes down , but the coupon stays the same, the yield goes up ). 3.…

Is it the bond or is it the share price that also tanked below IPO level?

both. Stock is below IPO price and bond is trading below par.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#462

Post by angiolillo »

fdsajfkldsfklds wrote: post #378
qeternity wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public in this context just means publicly listed on a stock exchange. It does not mean it is state-owned.

State ownership is just a proxy for public ownership.

Doesn't that depend on the form of government the state has?

(For example, state ownership under an absolute monarchy doesn't seem like a proxy for public ownership.)

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#463

Post by tavavex »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #436
tavavex wrote: post #137

Earlier 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"?

> the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits The inclusion rules for indices change every couple of years. That’s why there is an index provider versus a mathematical formula. (There are also formulaic indices. They aren’t very popular.)

My comment never says the rules are set in stone permanently - only that every stock needs to abide by the current set, unless there's enough money in play in which case the rules are edited then and there to specifically accommodate that company.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#464

Post by slowin »

Auracle wrote: post #210
qup wrote: post #142

Earlier 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 could say people like Henry Ford are on his level

Since Tesla was started, they've sold ~9.6 million cars. In that same time period, Ford has sold 100 million. Musk is no Henry Ford, it's much more accurate to compare him to P.T. Barnum and Bernie Madoff.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#465

Post by slowin »

qup wrote: post #142
fnordsensei wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who unironically said "Elon Musk is the most important human who has ever lived"

Who's your pick?

Anyone who's impact is more than just rampant financial fraud. Human's are the product of their environment and mostly just in the right place at the right time, but there's no criteria where you could put Elon Musk in a list of the most important humans of all time.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#466

Post by [deleted] »

marcosdumay wrote: post #270
tavavex wrote: post #137

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#467

Post by Terr_ »

marcosdumay wrote: post #270
tavavex wrote: post #137

Earlier 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.

In this case I think it is, because they're talking about whether a particular deal with be lucrative for one particular company named Nasdaq Incorporated.

Much like how Wile E. Coyote is a "safe" customer for Acme Inc, even though he purchases dangerous explosives and deploys them in reckless ways.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#468

Post by alistairSH »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #434
alistairSH wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People" in this instance aren't always informed buyers. Sometimes they're buying an index fund because they don't have the time to research individual stocks and sometimes it's their pension investing. The normal seasoning period is there for a reason. There is a massive downside to premature inclusion of a stock that is initially overvalued and then settles to a reasonable/sustainable value.

> Sometimes they're buying an index fund because they don't have the time to research individual stocks and sometimes it's their pension investing Then they should buy a broad-market fund. The kinds in which new issues are a tiny fraction or, if it’s following something like the S&P 500, not included at all. Following the Nasdaq 100 and then complaining it has too many risky tech plays is a bit silly.

Then they should buy a broad-market fund.

Like a Russell 1000 fund? Oh wait...

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#469

Post by JumpCrisscross »

yobutdude wrote: post #450
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They changed the rules for one person The timing isn’t great. But this was being discussed for a while. If it were only SpaceX, I’m doubtful the rules would have changed. But a tech index not including SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic and SK Hynix is a bit silly. And in the end, on index inclusion, the stock still fell. > simp…Twitter or Reddit Mm hmm.

> A bit silly Mm hmm I mean the planets would fly off orbit ...such thoughtless justification is not really disproving comparison to "anything goes" discourse of other platforms with a nonsense appeal to empty normalization 100% designed to offload an empty bag onto retail investors SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy It has no real sustainable business unlike SK Hynix, very much like OAI and Anthropi…

> offload an empty bag onto retail investors

This was a popular meme on Twitter and Reddit and YouTube, granted. The math doesn’t make sense with an index like the Nasdaq 100. But I’ll admit it’s a good story.

> SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy

This is also true of every defence contractor.

Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status

#470

Post by baggy_trough »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #345
baggy_trough wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't identify one item on that list that I think would be fair to consider a consensus.

Really? Do you want to try one out? I don’t see very many articles interested in new startups. It’s usually about them failing. I often use market explanations in my comments and these are not received favorably.

Consensus means there is general agreement, but those statements are highly disputed.
Post reply on HN