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

551–560 of 638 posts

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

#551

Post by idiotsecant »

wredcoll wrote: post #520
idiotsecant wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plows and mill stones and spinning wheels are excellent examples of exactly what a feudal lord owned. They owned the land, the major structures on that land, and the major implements on that land. If you wanted to use them you paid the lord in fees via goods, labor, etc. It's basically the gig economy - you will own nothing, your labor will be for his benefit, and if you want to keep participating you'll make it wort…

That did occasionally happen but I don't think it was the majority case by any means. That being said, if we're talking about the lord owning the mill you labor at, how is that different than tesla owning the car factory you work at?

I understand that you think that, but you're wrong according to pretty much every historical source.

If you don't understand the difference between a feudal lord an Elon musk I'm not sure I can help you. We live in a world where individual rights are orders of magnitude more significant that those of a feudal serf.

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

#552

Post by idiotsecant »

necovek wrote: post #500
fragmede wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, I read their joke differently: you were the one who said "only 1.2%", and they turned that on you by asking for you to part ways with "only 1.2%" of your net worth. They are not questioning money exchange, they are questioning the "only" part, claiming this is significant.

Yes

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

#553

Post by Terr_ »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #538
Terr_ wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> socialist than capitalist [...] federal tax rate My dude, you're acting like Federal government is the only government that matters. It's a common mistake, but in this context it's fatal to your argument. It's fatal because federal spending is the least relevant kind, since so much of it (and so much of its growth) is for the military, and military spending indicates very little about whether a country is socialist…

"since so much of it (and so much of its growth) is for the military" So clearly you are pretty uninformed as the military spending is only 13% of the federal budget. Social Security (AKA a socialist program, IDK if anyone can deny that) is 22%, Medicare (another socialist program is 14.2%). Interest on our prior spending (a lot of it from SS and Medicare, etc, some military too. is 14% So, if you add social programs…

> you are pretty uninformed [...] SS and Medicare

This is another aspect where your thesis is not-fully-baked. If you want people to receive what you meant, you have to stop writing it wrong.

1. You spoke about "the federal tax rate" and claimed it was "0" in 1900.

2. The most charitable interpretation of that is that you meant to say income tax: That's usually what people mean when they're too-vague; It would literally be $0 before it was introduced in 1913; You can't have meant all taxes because those were absolutely >0 and you wouldn't make that kind of math mistake, right?

3. When critiquing the growth and dominance of the income tax, that excludes the separate taxes (payroll) that go to SS/Medicare.

> capitalist economy

I'm not taking a stand on the "what the US is" conclusion at this point. What I'm saying is that your argument--how you're getting there--is unsound (can't ignore state/local level) and unclear (which numbers from where).

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

#554

Post by infecto »

runarberg wrote: post #525
infecto wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defend your position instead of comparing to earthquakes. The Nasdaq 100 is already quirky in that it’s the largest 100 non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq. So it’s a large-cap growth/tech play or for Nasdaq a showcase piece. I don’t think it’s great they remove the 3 month criteria but also knowing the specific slice of potentially unprofitable companies it highlights does not make it as concerning as the SP500…

To clarify: I am not comparing anything to these horrible earthquakes. I am comparing the above rhetoric to a hypothetical rhetoric about the earthquakes. Nobody would actually say this about these earthquakes, and that is my point.

Again, do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Your words are insulting and just putting words in my mouth. The Nasdaq 100 is not that special or unique. You’re comparing a quirky index to earthquakes which is weird. They don’t have much of any rules, the three month modification is maybe not great but also not that big of a deal. Price discovery is pretty quick and for the Nasdaq 100 it fits for their theme. It’s absolutely not the worst thing. It’s not really great or bad, it’s the Nasdaq 100. It might help to go read up on how they market that index.

I know people tend too see “index” and think it’s a rigorous financial instrument but on a lot of cases it’s not. This index excludes financials so it ends up being this mega cap/tech 100. No other rules historically.

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

#555

Post by inigyou »

dofm wrote: post #534
DennisP wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of mortgages were trash but the securities were a new and complicated financial product with a plausible story. A few people figured out the problems, but Michael Burry for example did it by combing through thousands of pages of prospectuses. SpaceX bonds are just plain ol' corporate bonds, the same stuff these investors have been analyzing for a very long time.

Max Keiser of Karmabanque was talking about and writing about it in public more than a year before Burry acted, with pretty solid predictions, without any obvious forensic action. He's quite bonkers, but if it was obvious to Keiser it should have been obvious to these highly intelligent people we're discussing.

Economists predict 500 out of every 10 recessions.

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

#556

Post by inigyou »

WarmWash wrote: post #516
inigyou wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shorts can go down to -1000% and beyond.

Yes, but you have to hold through that, and your broker also needs to let you hold through it. The risk of a stock like spaceX gapping up 10x in an instant is virtually zero.

So if I wouldn't lend someone 9 times their assets I can't let them have that position.

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

#557

Post by inigyou »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #387
gottorf wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_(finance) There are, as said, depending on juristic regime, products which do not let you lose more than you invested. On top of this comes national regulation: E.g. in some EU countries, retail traders are exempt from s.c. "margin calls" and the broker is required by regulation to "just close and not ask for more" Source: Im living in one of these EU countries

A turbo is not a short position. It is more similar to an option.

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

#558

Post by runarberg »

infecto wrote: post #554
runarberg wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify: I am not comparing anything to these horrible earthquakes. I am comparing the above rhetoric to a hypothetical rhetoric about the earthquakes. Nobody would actually say this about these earthquakes, and that is my point.

Again, do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Your words are insulting and just putting words in my mouth. The Nasdaq 100 is not that special or unique. You’re comparing a quirky index to earthquakes which is weird. They don’t have much of any rules, the three month modification is maybe not great but also not that big of a deal. Price discovery is pretty quick and for the Nasdaq 100 it fits fo…

I am pointing out (what I think is) a logical fallacy you made earlier.

This what your parent said:

> The worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules for the Nasdaq 100.

And you replied with:

> It would be shocking if we were talking about the SP500.

My critique is that this is not a valid refutation of your parent’s original claim.

If you don‘t think this is constructive, then that is on you. In my mind you have not refuted your parent’s original claim, and I have explained why above.

Also let me repeat, since you seem to have missed it when I said it above: I am not comparing anything to earthquake. I am making an obviously ridiculous hypothetical claim I just picked earthquakes because it was more obvious. I could have as well made the hypothetical claim about the worst thing about coffee is that it is only lukewarm, and then the refutation saying: “no actually, it could have been room temperature, so lukewarm is not that bad.“

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

#559

Post by inigyou »

GJim wrote: post #288
inigyou wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence that Elon Musk is a Nazi.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we may have to accept the fact it is a duck.

There is no evidence that Elon Musk quacks like a duck.

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

#560

Post by inigyou »

bit-anarchist wrote: post #517
idiotsecant wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL: The bad parts of a system are some other isim, the good parts are the system.

The problem is defining what is the system.

The system is only the good parts of the system.
Post reply on HN