101–110 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically this would be prohibited (at least as an employee)
If you have holdings that are locked up, are you allowed to short stock or use options to hedge your position?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, people expect it to trade much lower, around $40 per share, still would be a huge valuation for what the company has done. Goldman Sachs analysts had an extreme range, of like $6 Billion to $5T, but the consensus $2T required 100x revenue multiple by 2030. If revenue was less than 10x by 2030 it's less than $100B company, and only $6B if it remains flat. So a lot of downsides and the upside requires a continuati…
> Goldman Sachs analysts had an extreme range, of like $6 Billion to $5T What a weird way for them to say "we don't know"! It's like saying this house has 0 to 100 bathrooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically this would be prohibited (at least as an employee)
If you have holdings that are locked up, are you allowed to short stock or use options to hedge your position?
The issue is that this creates a conflict of interest.
In the worst case scenario, as an employee, you can literally do a bad thing to cause the stock to go down. E.g. An engineer can make a bug which blows up a rocket.
So then you could short the stock, bug a rocket, and become super rich.
It's the same issue with athletes betting on their own team - it's trivial to throw the game.
Hasn'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.
JPM still thinks its a $300 stock
My point don't listen to ANY stock analysts.
>J.P. Morgan analyst Rajat Gupta just took over the investment bank's coverage of Tesla's stock (TSLA), and in doing so, he lifted the firm's rating to neutral from underweight. The previous analyst, Ryan Brinkman, was a fairly vocal Tesla bear who warned just two months ago that investors should treat the stock with a "high degree of caution."Brinkman's previous price target of $145 implied 65% downside from Thursday's closing price of $418.45. But Gupta has now raised J.P. Morgan's Tesla target to $475 in conjunction with the upgrade.
https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260605179/jp-...
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.
From 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?
From 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?
The original owner doesn't hold the shares either, but they do have a contract for them to be returned.
As a practical matter, this effectively creates shares, just like a bank loaning money creates money.
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.
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.
So although Google, say, technically has a huge float on a percentage basis, because none of the big three holders (Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin) are selling any significant amount of their shares, the practical float is much lower.
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.