Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#51

Post by richwater »

Zigurd wrote: post #44
skizm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the same point I also don't want the index itself picking and choosing which companies to apply which rules to.

Except they did pick and choose SPCX and did special favors by giving them a multiplier on the float and an exceedingly short interval before including it in indices.

The only index that I know that float multiplied is Nasdaq which no one should even be investing in via their 401k anyway. Shitty index. Most consumers are utilizing some type of fund that tracks the CSRP, which float adjusts with no multiplier.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#52

Post by richwater »

ggm wrote: post #14

An interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests…

The SP500 (the index the article is using for their example) literally requires profitability. Tesla wasn't includes for years and years because of it.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#53

Post by darth_avocado »

dehrmann wrote: post #33

Matt Levine's take was essentially that if you're in the index fund game, you want the market. You don't pick and choose what parts of the market you want--that's active management. SPCX mostly isn't an issue because most indices include the float in the weight, so it isn't really even a $1T company.

The problem isn’t that you’re invested in the index. The problem is that the index decided it wanted to change its rules to include companies that are not profitable. I still remember the days when you needed to be profitable for x quarters and have a minimum amount of float to be listed in an index. That changed overnight and we all know why.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#54

Post by richwater »

petilon wrote: post #49

SpaceX is being valued as an AI company and yet they don't have a frontier AI model. Goldman Sachs is predicting 100x growth in 4 years for xAI, but it is a failed company with no frontier model. Top employees have left, and the company is renting out datacenter capacity. Satellite launch business has $4.1 billion in revenue, but only growing 8% annually. Most of the revenue is from Starlink. It has $11.4 billion in…

[flagged]

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#55

Post by rtlfe »

Zigurd wrote: post #44
skizm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the same point I also don't want the index itself picking and choosing which companies to apply which rules to.

Except they did pick and choose SPCX and did special favors by giving them a multiplier on the float and an exceedingly short interval before including it in indices.

Depends which index. S&P isn't giving them anything special. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-fac...

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#56

Post by [deleted] »

mattmaroon wrote: post #2

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.…

[deleted]

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#57

Post by sidibe »

Panzer04 wrote: post #8
mattmaroon wrote: post #2

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.…

Depends, they've gone to pains to ensure the indexes will buy as share lockups end. It's dodgy no matter how you look at. The one saving grace is s&p isnt changing anything, and they were by far the biggest index.

The whole IPO was designed to be like a short squeeze where index funds have to buy soon but there's not enough shares. For the little float that's available they are weighting it significantly more than they should by previous rules. They need to have tens of billions worth of what was 70 billion by next week, and retail investors who got in on the IPO were told by their brokers if they sell early on they will not get to participate in future IPOs.

There were not enough shares actually trading for the index funds to fulfill their requirements that's why the price keeps going up

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#58

Post by rayiner »

ggm wrote: post #14

An interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests…

If SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized.

The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 years and heard so much breathless cheerleading for web apps “changing the world” but now we have companies that really might change the world and it’s a scam?

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#59

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tlogan wrote: post #47

I have a feeling the article and the comments on this trend would be very different if Elon Musk did not support Trump, even if he were still just as crazy and rich.

Regardless of what you think of his politics, SpaceX is waaaay overvalued.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#60

Post by drawnwren »

rayiner wrote: post #58
ggm wrote: post #14

An interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests…

If SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized. The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 y…

But if SpaceX does anything _other than become the most valuable company in history by delivering at least two technologies predicated on the largest stock rise in history based on a single technology (LLMs)_, the gains from zero to now will have been privatized and the losses will be born by the public. Which is what everyone is thinking about.
Post reply on HN