I feel like market cap valuations should have some way to factor in the supply/demand constraints. I know that float exists as a concept, but I think it's insane to call SpaceX a Trillion dollar company, when if it started selling significant stock tomorrow, it would probably be selling pennies on the dollar.
SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
91–100 of 134 posts
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#92Hasn't the stock already collapsed below IPO price? Does that mean the IPO was simply overpriced? Do these people expect the stock to go down even further? Shorting is way more risky I don't see why this would be the case unless my questions turned out to be predictions.
I wouldn't say that it collapsed, it's only slightly under its IPO price, $134 vs. $135. However it's not going up and later this month the first lockup period ends and people who got stock options are allowed to sell some of their stocks. These people don't care if the price is $134 or $135, because they go in much much lower, down to $30, from what I can tell. So starting this month there's going to be new shares a…
Down to $124 already today...
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#93There's another Starship launch today. It'll be interesting to watch the stock price react to the failures and successes of their testing campaign.
Down quite sharply in response to the aborted launch.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#94There's another Starship launch today. It'll be interesting to watch the stock price react to the failures and successes of their testing campaign.
Down quite sharply in response to the aborted launch.
It would seem extremely dumb for a market stock to move significantly, based only on livestreams of designated test missions.
I mean wow, the Starship test flight today probably gave a lot of useful data during the countdown and fueling and preparations. I sort of had deja vu because there was recently another aborted launch (Electron? Rocket Lab?) where the engines ignited at T-00:00, and shut down immediately.
It was honestly majestic to watch that machine shut down gracefully and abort for the day. Nonetheless, it failed to influence my stock purchase decisions in the slightest.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#95Over two weeks ago, calls outnumbered puts 5 to 1 according to an article by SeekingAlpha. I am wondering if this flip is too reactive. I can't discount the "Musk premium" that keeps people enamored with his securities and cause unpredictability.
That just means lots of people are writing calls[1]
[1] ie are happy to be synthetically short the stock and see a demand for the calls
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#96I just hope this doesn't destroy the company that would suck lose their edge and then China comes in
No one forced them to IPO well above the present value of their future cash flows. Or claim their TAM was $28 trillion.
Yes, you'd expect the Falcon 9-based space launch and Starlink businesses to retain some sort of value whatever happens. They could easily be sold off as going concerns if things were to go south.
The failure of SpaceX might doom xAI and Mars colonisation, but it's very unlikely to wipe out American medium lift launch capabilities.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're just working very hard to miss the point. Nobody can place the pessimistic bet, unless there is someone equally optimistic in the other direction. The fact that you're fixated on the price varying as each side attempts to do the best it can is just a commitment to a narrative, not a useful insight. Here's the simple way to know you're wrong. The stock price isn't zero. That means there people willing (at s…
> Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price. And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point. So to climb out of this nullification, we have to consider how many actors didn't get filled at the price they want. There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.
> And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point.
No it doesn't. It's the flip side of the one you want to focus on, and all i've been saying is that it's not the ONLY side. If it nullifies my point, it also nullifies yours. They cancel EACH OTHER out.
> There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.
Sure, but so what? That is true of literally every product sold. The price isn't zero, so there is enough liquidity to cover every short that was actually sold. You've already admitted to that. The fact that the price goes down, (and can sometimes move back up) is immaterial.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're just working very hard to miss the point. Nobody can place the pessimistic bet, unless there is someone equally optimistic in the other direction. The fact that you're fixated on the price varying as each side attempts to do the best it can is just a commitment to a narrative, not a useful insight. Here's the simple way to know you're wrong. The stock price isn't zero. That means there people willing (at s…
> No, you're working very hard to miss the point. It seems the opposite is true here. > [Shorts] literally can't be made, unless there was someone in the market who thinks that at the short price, the stock is a good investment opportunity. Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price. Again, this isn't true. The spot price has to decrease from the point where short-selling…
> What you're essentially saying is that "every gallon of milk is sold to a person". This is not useful information.
Only because you're ignoring the other option, that the gallon of milk DIDN'T sell. It tells you that there was demand for the milk you had to sell. If there was no customer, the milk would have spoiled. There are still people who want to drink milk. There are still people who believe you're not selling poison, that milk is a worthy thing to buy from you. That is useful information.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price. And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point. So to climb out of this nullification, we have to consider how many actors didn't get filled at the price they want. There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.
> And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point. No it doesn't. It's the flip side of the one you want to focus on, and all i've been saying is that it's not the ONLY side. If it nullifies my point, it also nullifies yours. They cancel EACH OTHER out. > There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point. Sure, but so what? That is tru…
Nullify means cancel out
To make it clear to you,
>So to climb out of this [cancel each other out], we have to consider how many actors didn't get filled at the price they want. There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.
And no, there is not enough liquidity, so the price has to move to provide it. That's why you cannot hand wave away price movement, it's intrinsically part of transactions being formed. And why a headline like "Heavily shorted" captures sentiment around a stock, especially one that is tanking.
Re: SPCX is now Wall Street's most shorted new stock
#100From Matt Levine just today... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-07-16/sho... Right now, SpaceX has provided 639 million shares to trade. People want more. In a month, there will be 1,583 million shares to trade. But right now, there are actually 820 million shares to trade: the 639 million provided by SpaceX, plus another 181 million provided by short sellers.
Do the short sellers actually hold shares?