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

471–480 of 638 posts

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

#471

Post by scottyah »

alistairSH wrote: post #405
danudey wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saw an interesting discussion on how capitalism has existed for as long as markets have existed, including ancient Greece, and how it inevitably leads to wealth inequality, monopolistic behavior, unsustainable resource extraction, and all the other negatives we see today. The only difference is that in Greece, all of these negatives would have been applied locally but now they're all being applied globally. Instead o…

Pretty sure Adam Smith captured that in his writings. Full laissez-faire, free market capitalism generally leads to wealth (and power) imbalance. Regulation is necessary to prevent that (assuming you want to maintain a "fair" democracy of sorts and not regress to oligarchy).

I can't see any system where people are treated fairly (equally and able to reap benefits of their labor aka not slaves) that won't lead to inequality. People are just different, and will have different production rates.

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

#472

Post by JumpCrisscross »

alistairSH wrote: post #468
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> Like a Russell 1000 fund?

Yes. A fund that doesn’t choose what is and isn’t a good investment. Total market means total market.

If you don’t like that, the S&P 500 is bigger than those for a reason.

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

#473

Post by fragmede »

idiotsecant wrote: post #460
fragmede wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just give me SpaceX shares equivalent to 1.2%.

uh oh I think you lost the thread of metaphor there.

how embarrassing! Look, your joke was "If it's only 1.2%, hey, that's not that much, just give it to me for free!" We don't have to believe SPCX is worth whatever it's trading at today, but that 1.2% isn't simply being given away. Under capitalism, money is exchanged for goods and services.

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

#474

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tavavex wrote: post #463
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> unless there's enough money in play in which case the rules are edited then and there to specifically accommodate that company

The Nasdaq 100 rule change covers multiple companies.

Like, there is so much wrong with the SpaceX IPO. It’s kind of weird, as someone who’s spent time in both the equity capital markets and private markets, to see this being the thing finance Twitter has fixated on.

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

#475

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cma wrote: post #448
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules Nasdaq 100 has always been marketed as a tech-forward index. It would be a bit ridiculous if they didn’t include the most value tech companies on the market. There was a potential scandal at S&P. But it didn’t happen. My personal guess is a lot of finance influencers latched onto this story. When it didn’t pan out they tried to maintain credibility…

> Nasdaq 100 has always been marketed as a tech-forward index. It would be a bit ridiculous if they didn’t include the most value tech companies on the market. What if they floated only .01%? What's the cutoff for it being ridiculous not to include?

> What if they floated only .01%? What's the cutoff for it being ridiculous not to include?

You’d probably still include it, at least for a tech index. But you’d underweight it relative to float for indices published for funds. (The pure play index would weight it wholly because informationally it’s still a whole company.)

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

#476

Post by stackghost »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #188
stackghost wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Index funds, for starters.

Contrary to (apparently) popular opinion, index funds are not people.

This is such a weird response because nothing about index fund inclusion rules has anything to do with whether or not a fund is a person.

Complete non sequitur. Can you explain what you mean? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment?

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

#477

Post by scottyah »

exhumet wrote: post #370
thewebguyd wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that logic is you're treating economic systems as if they all exist in a vacuum, and you're setting up a circular argument of if its successful its actually because capitalism, if it fails it must have been socialism. It completely ignores the decades of external hostility toward any nation that attempted to build a socialist economy. Almost every attempt has been met with near immediate intervention…

agreed. its almost like... we need a healthy mix of economic systems to prosper

I see socialism benefitting from capitalism, but how have capitalistic nations benefitted from socialist ones (other than a place to put military bases)?

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

#478

Post by zzrrt »

zzrrt wrote: post #289
cyberjerkXX wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This is a reason why the US is trillions in debt. Trump's OBBBA will be another reason, expected to add several trillion in the next few years. So yeah, real cuts are probably needed, but the DOGE people aren't achieving that in net.

To clarify, Elon himself opposed OBBBA because of the deficit. My point is that anyone cheering on DOGE for cuts but staying silent on the administration's generally bad record on spending, has an ideological bias that is not purely about fiscal responsibility.

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

#479

Post by qwerpy »

timmytokyo wrote: post #456
qwerpy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that people like you are still pushing the subjective salute thing as incontrovertible fact makes it hard to find any common ground. Serious people in the media, even the ones heavily biased against Elon, don’t harp on it the way online people do.

It's not like the salute is a singular event. Just look at him on X. Most of what he talks about today is his support for racist political movements (like Reform UK and AfD). That's when he's not tweaking grok to insert "white genocide" into responses for recipe requests. There's a pattern here. The man's brain was utterly broken by the social media platform he bought, and he's an overt fascist at this point.

What you said is a more substantive argument than the lazy “Nazi salute, end of story” that somehow doesn’t get shot down enough here.

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

#480

Post by kasey_junk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #472
alistairSH wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they should buy a broad-market fund. Like a Russell 1000 fund? Oh wait...

> Like a Russell 1000 fund? Yes. A fund that doesn’t choose what is and isn’t a good investment. Total market means total market. If you don’t like that, the S&P 500 is bigger than those for a reason.

The reason you know the people complaining the most about this aren’t serious is that they don’t lead with crsp and vti.

They did change their rules, they did it fairly specifically for spacex and it did drive inclusion in a major index fund (perhaps the biggest one).

Now me personally, as a holder of vti I am good with the change and my included exposure to spacex. Further I think mostly complaining about the inclusion/exclusion of a single name in an index _defeats the point_.

But for those decrying the shenanigans crsp and vti are the example to go with.

Post reply on HN