The SpaceX IPO Will Be the Theft of the Century(montanaskeptic.substack.com) |
The SpaceX IPO Will Be the Theft of the Century(montanaskeptic.substack.com) |
Anyways, seems like he's keeping the grudge alive.
They were right about a couple of things back then. But majorly wrong in aggregate and with respect to the outcome.
If the thesis was that Tesla would be unable to create a system that would churn out cars that could be sold at scale with an economic surplus, then we have to reject it.
This is also addressed in the article:
> E. DON’T TRY TO SHORT SPACEX!!
> Elon Musk is a cult figure. Moreover, he has again and again proven himself immune to any meaningful market, legal, or regulatory scrutiny.
> Musk’s detractors have been correct about Tesla’s terrible fundamentals, its Full Self-Driving lies, its robotaxi fantasies, its shaky accounting. But when they have imagined these things might affect the stock price, they have been wrong.
At around $60B valuation sometime in 2018, how was TeslaQ spot on?
Are you maybe claiming that Tesla is lying in their current disclosures?
So my trade on IPO day will be long $X SpaceX, short $X Tesla. Wait 1 month. Wish me luck.
I feel that what this article is telling me is that passive funds are becoming active funds by way of manipulating the index itself. Kind of like if you’re passively invested in Brazil winning the World Cup but you can’t adjust the team or tactics, so instead you move the goal posts to where they’re about to kick the ball?
Pension funds seem more selective on the other hand. It’s always been the case that you can adjust your palette based on personal preference eg green energy, no weapons, tech stocks, etc.
The fund itself is a financial product with a fee attached. Regardless of an index's perceived "quality" funds will always be created as long as there is investor demand. In recent years there has been an explosion of exotic "thematic" ETFs with exaggerated returns & comparatively higher fees. These tend not to attract the most sophisticated crowd. You can be sure they won't perform well into the long term.
> Is it simply a branding thing? I’m buying into S&P500 because S&P500 is a highly recognized term used to mean “The US Economy”?
Absolutely, it is 100% branding. For better or for worse S&P500 is the barometer of US economic health. There's every incentive to manipulate it to score political points.
That said, if you think this is as bad as the article claims you'll obviously buy SpaceX at IPO, then sell it when Index funds are obligated to buy.
The price at IPO will obviously be influenced by expectations of a future purchase by index funds... as an analogy, if it became public knowledge that next week, 1,000,000 people would all be required to buy gold, the price of gold would go up today, not next week
If the fast entry rule changes hadn’t happened I would agree with you entirely.
Fortunately, this only affects indices that follow nasdaq, and from what i know, no other index is following this. That means it's "safe" to purchase a globally diversified, cap weighted index fund (safe as in the float isn't manipulated).
People talk of the demise of passive investing due to this, but most of the commentary fail to mention it's a specific, nasdaq thing and not a general change.
Also don't get me started on data centers in space idea...
When the Chinese land on the moon sometime in 2030 and the US still doesn't have a way to get there, will Elon finally reap the consequences for his lies or just the interim NASA admin that gave Space X the contract?
In all likelihood, neither.
As a point of reference, the GDP of the United States is roughly $30T.
this is the new playbook.
Same as the old playbook, just scaled up. Tesla got billions from state subsidies and selling carbon credits.
Observe that almost all the complaints about what the indices are doing originate from outside of finance. It's very telling that the people who are complaining are not the ones putting their money where their mouths are.
If market participants didn't like what the indices are doing, they would simply reject it. Market participants absolutely do want this.
Now the underlying rules got changed, undeniably in favor and through pressure of few individuals.
Where I come from, we call that a rug pull
Oh yes, all those poor giant institutional money managers who don't care about the details would be so shocked if only someone told them about this "rug pull".
>Now the underlying rules got changed, undeniably in favor and through pressure of few individuals.
This is ridiculous. The entire purpose of index funds is to reflect the market, the rules are being changed to enable the funds to better reflect the market.
Basically everyone who wants broad index funds wants this. If you don't want this, you simply need to look for a different product.
I'm rooting for SpaceX, but even I can see that there's some extremely dicey work being done to mask the enormous sinkhole of XAi (and Twitter).
It must be terrible to be so utterly powerless.
- many funds owned by the public will buy this, so people will be indirectly invested and could lose money
- if this affects the economy, it will affect everyoneHe's got some kind of beef with Elon and has predicted TSLA stock will crash many times.
There are a lot of high stakes bets wrapped up in that company at this point already. AI, orbital launch business, communications networks, a little bit of Twitter/X, etc. And soon robots, grid battery, solar panels, electrical vehicles, autonomous driving, etc. They don't all have to work out to justify the combined valuation. Of course the facts are that quite a few of these lines of businesses are generating many billions in revenue already. It's at least a more diversified bet if a merge happens. Which might be why some share holders might prefer this. I don't have shares but I think that's a pretty rational attitude.
Still a risky bet of course. But betting that it will all fail might be the riskier one. Maybe it will just end up somewhere in between and not quite live up to expectations but still be a business generating lots of revenue with some healthy growth.
F sells an order of magnitude more cars (~$190 billion in revenue), and has a market cap of $62.8 billion vs TSLA market cap of $1.59 trillion.
TSLA is ridiculous. Any sane investor would look at those numbers and run as far and as fast as they can.
Comparing with MSFT and AAPL makes TSLA look even more insane.