Hacker News

points by spwa4 3 days ago | 0 comments

Why wouldn't the same apply to Spacex? That one sold and is holding it's IPO price.

The market is unhinged. TSLA also continues to maintain an absurd valuation, and my bet is the same dynamic explains SPCX.

[–] methodical 3 days ago

While this is true, something to keep in mind is that the liquidity of the market is finite. The market may be able to hold SPCX up currently but adding an additional $100b (and much more as the lockup periods end) plus whatever OpenAI ends up offering might be too much for a lot of these pensions and the other buyers of these shares can manage. They will naturally get included in the indices as they become able to but the question is whether or not all 6 trillion of collective market cap they're attempting to offload will be able to be held up with time. My working theory is that they're aware of this fact to and it's been part of the reason they've been rushing to the door with these IPOs and non-standard lockup periods.

[–] 59percentmore 3 days ago

TSLA is the beneficiary of a slow-walked short squeeze. If measures hadn't been taken, it would have have turned into a black hole for the markets. TSLA was not owned by large institutional holders, and was actually bet against by them, the opposite of SPCX. SPCX is currently liquidity for X investors and it will collapse when they have exited.

People need to go to jail this time.

[–] pc86 3 days ago

What crime has been committed?

[–] 59percentmore 3 days ago

That's the wrong question. The right question is, "What crimes can be construed to have been committed, in order to put enough people in jail for long enough sentences such that the chain of malicious and destructive financial misconduct which lead to the crisis can be severed?".

We put Capone away on tax evasion. Get creative.

[–] janderson215 3 days ago

Maybe I’m the only person who thinks this, but I think your line of thinking is very dangerous and way more dangerous than ANT or SPCX.

[–] 59percentmore 2 days ago

Is it? How so?

And tell that to the people whose retirement index funds are about to drop xx% in order to facilitate an exit for ANT and SPCX insiders.

[–] pc86 3 days ago

Capone actually did evade taxes, though. Nobody "construed [it] to have been committed." It was a real crime.

If you think something is bad for society but it's not legal, you make it illegal. You don't make up false crimes and arrest people for those. That's what tyrants and sociopaths do. It's disgusting.

[–] 59percentmore 2 days ago

No one said anything about making up crimes. The point is to look at a financial crisis or catastrophic market event with the mindset that functional markets where everyone is playing fair do not behave that way, and that, because the situation is abnormal, a crime is likely to have been committed to set it in those circumstances.

Further, because the complexity and opacity of markets and firms makes finding and proving specific securities fraud instances difficult and expensive, makes pinning those instances on the actual decision-makers difficult and expensive, and makes securing consequences that actually stop the fraud functionally or as a deterrent difficult and expensive, it is prudent and pragmatic to identify those decision-makers and to go after them for anything and everything you can find. If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments, you shouldn't get off because investigators can't get at the smoking gun documents that you burned or hid from discovery. I want them to ignore the small-fry and go after you with everything they've got.

We did not do this after 2008, which is why we are where we are.

So again, the correct question is not a skeptical, "What crime has been committed?", but a willful," What crimes can we find among the people involved here, whatever they are?". I have no moral qualms or compunction about this, and no one who remembers the ravages of the GFC or the last few years will have an issue, either.

[–] pc86 2 days ago

I expect law enforcement to find a crime, then find the perpetrator. You expect them to find a person they (or someone powerful) doesn't like, and find a crime to suit. That's fine, it even makes sense. Most tyrants don't believe they're actually tyrants.

At the risk of feeding the trolls...

> If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments

How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?

[–] Master_Odin 3 days ago

It's down 8% over past 6 months while the S&P500 is up 7%. It's definitely so far been not a great investment, unless you managed to get in and out during that brief huge upswing

[–] internetter 3 days ago

It stands to reason Anthropic will also have a huge upswing. I may eat my words.

[–] runarberg 3 days ago

There are people playing that same game on the other end, and they have the tools to exploit market swings which you may not have. Those are the people who will benefit from the potential huge upswing, and that money came from somewhere, most likely from your investment.

Playing the stock market is a loosing game. It is gambling where all the rules and all the odds are stacked in favor of a handful of people who gamble for a living. (it is also systemic exploitation of the working classes; so if you are into worker solidarity [you should] you should not partake in said exploitation).

[–] dbmnt 3 days ago

It is not, played over time, a losing game. Just look at the lifetime graph of any major index.

If you just buy and hold, and don't panic sell during a recession, you'll win.

Will other more sophisticated players make money exploiting short-term swings? Sure. Will other players beat your returns? Also yes.

But that money isn't coming out of your pocket, so why does it matter? You're still beating leaving your money in a savings account, where inflation is outpacing interest.

[–] internetter 3 days ago

> Playing the stock market is a loosing game. It is gambling where all the rules and all the odds are stacked in favor of a handful of people who gamble for a living

Indeed. And yet opting out is an even bigger loss.

[–] rjbwork 3 days ago

Which I did. Most obvious opportunity for a trailing stop order of my entire time trading, lol.

[–] zeeveener 3 days ago

If I understand correctly, the argument isn't that it can't _hold_ it's price, but that it's not worth investing in if the goal is _meaningful gains_.

[–] baobabKoodaa 2 days ago

The point is that IPO price is more speculative than the price established by the public market once the stock is freely tradable. When a stock holds its price post IPO, that indicates the IPO was priced more or less correctly (absent any other information).

[–] karmakurtisaani 3 days ago

Only a small fraction of SpaceX stock is available on the market.

[–] nrmitchi 3 days ago

Fwiw I agree that SpaceX is generally completely detached from reality and I am as-close-as-I-can-be to sure that Elon is doing some heavy manipulation behind the scenes, but this has changed recently as lockups expired. IIRC the current float is ~30%, compared to it's initial IPO when it was comically low at ~4-5%.

30% is much higher than 4-5%, but it's still much lower than most public companies (~80%)

[–] devmor 3 days ago

Buying a stock that holds its price is equivalent to putting your money in a savings account with no interest.

[–] PacificSpecific 3 days ago

I presume you mean a stock that holds its price with no dividend?

[–] andriy_koval 3 days ago

stock will likely hold inflation adjusted price unlike saving account.

Given gov currently spends 1T annually on servicing debt, I expect US is forced to print money and increase inflation for a long time.

[–] nrmitchi 3 days ago

As others said, the market is generally unhinged currently, with enough extremely wealthy people needing somewhere to put money that doesn't really matter to them, and I suspect some level of "investing in SpaceX public stock" is done to appease/appeal-to Elon.

[–] BLKNSLVR 3 days ago

The fact its price is only holding, as opposed to having maintained its initial growth, is an indicator (for me anyway) that the bubble is pretty close to its maximum size, and it could only take very few more breaths, cough Anthropic and OpenAI cough, to reach critical mass (mixing my metaphors).

But, as they say, bears sound smart, bulls make money.

[–] grey-area 3 days ago

That means public investors have made 0%

[–] yreg 3 days ago

Holding price is not enough.