[deleted]
SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
31–40 of 638 posts
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#32Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#33I'm impressed with the general public. I thought these guys would get away with their hype train. Nice surprise.
The thing that propelled Tesla to ridiculous heights was the massive shorting (and eventual covering). This should just drop and drop (I hope).
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#34> has now widened from the initial +175bps to a whopping +231bps doing more than two-thirds of the work.
2.31% spread over treasuries is heading for junk bond status?
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are super shares like Zuckerberg's and Musk a new thing? Genuinely curious if they're a recent invention or something that's quietly happened for a while because it seems like a large inversion of the deal of going public, lose some control of the company in exchange for a large amount of cash but these nonvoting/supervoting share splits seem to completely upend what I understood to be part of the deal for access to…
Ford has them. What it has meant for Ford-- and will probably mean for Facebook-- is that Zuck's heirs will control the company, for better or for worse. The common justification for this is that for a media company (NYT) you want a person or family to take responsibility for the editorial content, not a pure profit seeker. Facebook has it both ways and typically denies it has editorial control. IMO, the flaw of mark…
Zuckerberg’s high vote shares convert to regular shares after he leaves or dies. His heirs will not continue to have super votes.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#36Quite honestly IPOs and the stock market in general is a Ponzi scheme. This is something I would never have said before. I am not a skeptic. I invested in the markets for years and made money on Amazon, Google, twilio, and so many others. But I also lost a lot of money buying near or after the IPO. The game is rigged. Those who put money in post IPO in the 12 months after are left holding the bag for years. It takes…
It’s been true for over twenty years that the majority of IPOs drop below their IPO price and stay there. Maybe your brokerage has some shares before IPO day that they’ll let you buy, but you’re still taking a big risk. Buy shares on the open market? Yeah, you’re the sucker they were looking for.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#37Quite honestly IPOs and the stock market in general is a Ponzi scheme. This is something I would never have said before. I am not a skeptic. I invested in the markets for years and made money on Amazon, Google, twilio, and so many others. But I also lost a lot of money buying near or after the IPO. The game is rigged. Those who put money in post IPO in the 12 months after are left holding the bag for years. It takes…
This isn't backed by any evidence though. Jay Ritter maintains an extensive amount of data on IPOs here:
https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/ipo-data/
And his data shows that IPOs for the most part perform about as well as their respective market. That is large multi-billion dollar IPOs perform about as well as the broad market, and smaller IPOs (which constitute the vast majority of IPOs) perform about as well as other small-cap companies.
In other words, investing in IPOs doesn't give much of an advantage or disadvantage compared to investing in other similarly sized companies.
What's true is that most stocks, including IPOs, don't do well in the long run. The half-life of a publicly traded company is something like 10 years.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#38Quite honestly IPOs and the stock market in general is a Ponzi scheme. This is something I would never have said before. I am not a skeptic. I invested in the markets for years and made money on Amazon, Google, twilio, and so many others. But I also lost a lot of money buying near or after the IPO. The game is rigged. Those who put money in post IPO in the 12 months after are left holding the bag for years. It takes…
Warren Buffett famously said IPO stands for “It’s Probably Overpriced”.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#39Good thing there's a strong corporate governance model at SpaceX where the c-suite is fully accountable to an independent board of directors, who could use their majority voting power to remove that c-suite at will. Could you imagine the abuse of power that could happen if one person held over 50% of the voting power at such a company?
Are super shares like Zuckerberg's and Musk a new thing? Genuinely curious if they're a recent invention or something that's quietly happened for a while because it seems like a large inversion of the deal of going public, lose some control of the company in exchange for a large amount of cash but these nonvoting/supervoting share splits seem to completely upend what I understood to be part of the deal for access to…
The New York Times Company operates under a dual-class stock structure where the Ochs-Sulzberger family holds roughly 95% of Class B shares. This family control allows them to elect 70% of the company's Board of Directors.
Copied from google's response to "new york times governance"
Google's AI also says that the NYT has had that structure since 1957.
Ford has something similar from the 1930s. (Dodge did too until it was bought.) Raylon (synthetic textiles) did it in the 1920s and the company behind Jack Daniels did it right after Prohibition.
Google says that the NYSE banned dual-class between 1926 and 1986; I don't know how to reconcile that with Ford.
Re: SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford has them. What it has meant for Ford-- and will probably mean for Facebook-- is that Zuck's heirs will control the company, for better or for worse. The common justification for this is that for a media company (NYT) you want a person or family to take responsibility for the editorial content, not a pure profit seeker. Facebook has it both ways and typically denies it has editorial control. IMO, the flaw of mark…
Zuckerberg’s high vote shares convert to regular shares after he leaves or dies. His heirs will not continue to have super votes.
[deleted]