781–790 of 1001 posts
google: we are commited to carbon free data centers by 2030 ( https://sustainability.google/reports/247-carbon-free-energy... ) also google: renting capacity from a data center powered by 27 methane gas turbines on trailers https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/4/whitehous...
The deal ends in June 2029, which is before 2030.
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns…
> and they get to join the index next year without a rule change. You seem to have ignored the 50% float rule. SpaceX is proposing to go public with about 5% of the float, but S&P requires 50%. Do we think that the market will absorb the release of 45% of the shares? I'm dubious.
And while SpaceX is IPOing with 4% float, after the 6 months lockup many more shares will release and float will increase to 40-50%.
So after 12 months, SpaceX meets the S&P inclusion requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a similar situation: I basically have just 2 funds in my retirement portfolio: SnP500 index fund (75%) AND Berkshire Hathaway B shares (25%) from my research I know that in years where SnP500 drops too much (recessionary periods), BRK-B would soften the blow as Value stocks tend to do well in such times. And usually that works for me.
What about swapping the SP500 for VT (total world equities)?
I see this argument a lot online: "You need more diversity." First, you didn't provide any reason or evidence about why this is a good idea. Second, "more diversity" isn't always better.
The S&P 500 has crushed VT since inception (June 2008). Most people will be surprised to learn that adding smaller cap (domestic) stocks, or international developed country stocks, or emerging market stocks will probably reduce your returns. As an example, you can compare the returns of S&P 500 vs Russell 2000 since 2005 [1]. It is not even close -- S&P 500 crushes again. Also, the vol in S&P 500 was lower than Russell 2000.
My investment philosophy comes directly from Warren Buffett: "Never bet against America". Of the three largest economic zones in the world with free markets (United States, Europe, and Japan), the United States is by far the most dynamic. Ask yourself: In the next 30 years (or more), which of those three regions will grow the most? In my view: Absolutely the United States.
Finally, to people who say that you need international stocks in your portfolio else you are "missing out". You don't. Why? The S&P 500 already has 30% of revenues from countries outside the United States. [2]
[1] https://curvo.eu/backtest/en/compare-indexes/russell-2000-vs...
[2] https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/research/researc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend yet the business has steadily grown more valuable
Because dividends are stupid and Berkshire is smart. Share buybacks are the optimal way to do "dividends". The only reason to do a dividend is because people like the feels of getting a cash payout.
Since the S-1 filing, xAI has taken over and is likely the largest share of revenue. I would estimate that ~95%+ of xAI revenue, and 100% of its profit, is from renting their datacenters. This is a datacenter REIT bolted onto a social media company bolted onto launch business bolted onto a niche ISP. The expected price to sales is ~100x. The best datacenter REITs trade at ~10x and pay a dividend, which SpaceX does no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Because underlying business changes over time (hopefully for the better) you are not simply hoping another shmuck pays you more, like with tulips, whose underlying value does not change with time. You own a portion of a concern that is improving its own fortunes. Furthermore, dividends are approved by the board once per quarter or once per year. A divid…
Among the oldest value models, the Dividend Discount Model, says that the value of a company's stock is based on the present value of its future dividend payments. Even if a company doesn't currently pay dividends, it will eventually do so or be purchased by a company that does. That's the theory at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space data centers need years of time to design, build, and deploy, 5-10 at least, and that's after they solve their multiple very difficult or impossible problems. How will they cool them? There are just simple ideas like giant structures to radiate the heat away, but you say you need to put lots of mass in orbit? Like fsd, will take decades to figure things out.
Cooling in space does not seem like a hard problem to me. You absorb a certain amount of energy in a given time in the form of solar energy, you should be able to emit that. On top of that, in LEO you are only in solar orbit roughly 50% of the time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Because underlying business changes over time (hopefully for the better) you are not simply hoping another shmuck pays you more, like with tulips, whose underlying value does not change with time. You own a portion of a concern that is improving its own fortunes. Furthermore, dividends are approved by the board once per quarter or once per year. A divid…
> The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Which for most investors with Class C/D shares is... the square root of zero. They assert no control over the business, the only way to benefit from the stock is to find another shmuck to buy it at a higher price.