SpaceX and Elon are the litmus test for the future. You're either with him, or your opinions are ignorant and irrelevant.
Sarcasm? Hard to tell.
The SpaceX Sham
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#12> Although SpaceX stock has since fallen far below its IPO price I'm a skeptic on SpaceX but the IPO price was $135, low was $108 and current price is $130. I wouldn't say that's far below.
Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments. Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actu…
All you had to do was put in an order with your broker (robinhood, E*Trade, etc). Some brokers did not get much allocation (Schwab) but this was not a hard stock to get at $135.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#13The real sham has yet to materialize. You only get a single $1T IPO. For the AI labs, investors are tapped out, and the only thing left is a huge IPO. Google, Meta, Microsoft's cash reserves are drying up, they're squeezing operations for every cent, and sure they can issue some stocks to raise cash, but not $1T. I think this bubble's failure mode matches that of a Ponzi scheme.
The Fed can still declare some kind of financial emergency and increase the money printing again. My guess is this is likely, given the sway that tech CEOs have over the White House, and the reality of overseas competition.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#14Ah yes... Critical Space Theory.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#15Re: The SpaceX Sham
#16> Although SpaceX stock has since fallen far below its IPO price I'm a skeptic on SpaceX but the IPO price was $135, low was $108 and current price is $130. I wouldn't say that's far below.
Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments. Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actu…
Anyone could sign up for the IPO price. I’m a nobody and I was able to buy some shares at $135 on the opening day. You just had to sign up to participate before opening day.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#17I remember when a post of mine was flagged due to pretty obvious patent trolling against a cool FOSS project, but i made the critical error of 'crying' in my title.
Maybe I should flag this to get it out of my system.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#18It's difficult to get past what comes across as an attempt to analytically substantiate moralistic reasoning. The contention that it's scandalous to raise capital to support an "automated future" then a dotted line to transhumanism and then the conclusion "it's a sham" feels shoddy.
To me, the bigger issue with SpaceX is that there's no real argument for how space exploration will benefit humanity in any tangible way. Humans cannot live sustainably on Mars or the moon -- that's just a straight-up lie. Satellites add some value for sure, but it's pretty limited, which helps explain why most of the launches just support StarLink (which itself is probably unsustainable financially). This whole thing is just a bunch of space nerds pushing society down a terrible cul-de-sac which will lower quality of life in meaningful ways in the coming century.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#19In retrospect it was a cunning plan to get $100B from the Musk-faithful to build Terafab. Intel is in, AmericaFirsters support it and Taiwan should feel less secure now.
The stock price is of course ridiculous: Intel lagged behind TSMC, but apparently Terafab has orders for ASML's latest gen machines (2nm). If Intel will manage to get a yield, we'll see.
All this space and AI stuff is marketing. The IPO was to get free money for a serious TSMC competitor.
Re: The SpaceX Sham
#20> Negative coverage of the IPO was limited due to the participation of so many major banks in the IPO process; they don’t want to poison the cash cow they’re milking for underwriting fees. WTF? Anyone willing to read this far knows that this is flat out false. The negative coverage was unrelenting, and largely driven by big players peeved by the unconventional process. Anyone who bothers to continue past that point i…
It's funny how our perceptions are driven by the source of our news. I generally perceived the positive coverage in regular news as unrelenting. I know the tech news sources I read were constantly complaining about rule changes and manipulations on the part of Spacex, but run-of-the-mill national news outlets seem to be endlessly hyping the stock to the point that a few of my non tech-savvy family members were asking if they needed to buy it as soon as they went public.