831–840 of 1001 posts
I think its a little insane to have the seasoning rule for an index be inside the lockup period
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is revenue. What is the net profit?
If you are growing revenue at a high rate then taking profit is a misallocation of resources. That is short-term thinking. It is much better to reinvest in revenue growth. You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.
If you give me $100, I will give you back $101, funded by equity raises.
Very high growth, very high revenue, huge customer satisfaction.
We hope to be profitable one day, already foresee a mechanism to double profitability per transaction and also double the number of transactions our customers perform.
Please let me know if you are keen to invest.
Spacex is worth buying. The best chance to make a lot of money is buying stock before the economics make sense. By the time SpaceX looks like a good company on paper with strong profits… the price will be so high you have little chance of making anything significant. If it’s a long term hold, consider how far away retirement is for you. Also, moon bases are coming. The AI companies IMO are fucked. In the next few yea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like this either, but from the article: > Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX,…
how dare you come in with rationality in the face of ELON BAD
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? An index fund represents the market (usually top 100 or 500 companies), and SpaceX will certainly be in the top few companies. I would argue it's a lot riskier to buy it after the IPO price (if you're buying it secondary it would be easier to spike prices by accident), plus then it's not representative of the actual market until you've purchased the stock. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, buying at the sale pri…
SpaceX financials are a mess outside of the actual SpaceX part. xAI is losing money hand over fist, other random bits in there are doing the same. The valuation makes no sense. It's basically a money transfer from the average person to the poor richest person on the planet. The true Great Filter is mental illness, apparently.
At least on SpaceX the float is really low. The Market only needs to "swallow" ~$100Bn in volume of shares (across the 3), which the NYSE does _daily_. the really interesting thing will be how much will other stocks go down because the passive dollars are chasing the new shares and have to sell to rebalance?
$ value of equity purchased in indices:
- total market cap of those 3: $3.6tn
- index inclusion weights is based on free float, not full market cap
- free floats ~5%
=> 5% * 3.6tn = 180bn of these stocks in MV weight in the index
$ value of index funds: $18tn
$ value of market cap that is tracked by these index funds: $57tn
=> index funds are 18/57 = 31.6% of the market value
=> 180bn * 31.6% = $57bn of stock included in the index funds
so $57bn in sales in other companies => 57bn/18tn = 0.32% of all other stocks sold
Now for the assymmetry here:
- 57bn in sales is about 7% of daily volume for all incumbants combined
- 57bn in purchase is about 15-30 days of volume for typical stocks (hence Elon's eagerness to get them included asap)
[flagged]
Several guidelines make it clear that this kind of comment is unwelcome here. Corruption and conspiracies are easy to insinuate, but we need more than insinuations to have intellectually gratifying discussions. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364986 and marked it off topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are growing revenue at a high rate then taking profit is a misallocation of resources. That is short-term thinking. It is much better to reinvest in revenue growth. You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.
I have a high revenue business opportunity. If you give me $100, I will give you back $101, funded by equity raises. Very high growth, very high revenue, huge customer satisfaction. We hope to be profitable one day, already foresee a mechanism to double profitability per transaction and also double the number of transactions our customers perform. Please let me know if you are keen to invest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of January, TSLA was somewhere around 2.3% of the S&P [1]. Because SpaceX will have so little float available, it would be somewhere around 0.7% if included. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500
Ya, but this is a proof-of-concept rip-off. The fact that the indexes don't have our back is a huge problem.
how could an index fund possibly have anyone's back? It's in index of the top 500 publicly traded companies. that's all. If SpaceX or Tesla or Anthropic or anyone else fall out of the top 500 then they fall off the index by definition.
I think a lot of these comments are coming from extreme emotions associated with AI and Elon Musk and not so much the way things work and will play out.
Is the text of the waiver and its reasoning anywhere? I guess I'll read tfa.