6 ms·

Very bold to do it in the current landscape but I'm sure they've got their reasons to do so

par 6y ago
On the contrary, anything tech related is sky rocketing. The Fed is proving they are willing to buy up just about anything, market highs know no ceiling. Now is the time to pile in with absolutely any tech related offering.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- e74ururu 6y ago
  So much this. Most people aren't privacy activists so Palantir is just a high profile contractor to invest in.
albntomat0 6y ago
Bold in which sense? I can think of a range of reasons why any company, and Palantir specifically, could be hesitant.
icey 6y ago
If I were Palantir I'd be worried about the funding from my primary customers (defense, law enforcement, ICE) in the likely coming very Democratic federal government. There's been a lot of noise made about changing how much money is being spent on law enforcement, which would directly impact Palantir's bottom line. If they can IPO and gracefully transition to private sector work, then they'll be golden; but afaict private sector hasn't gone as well as they'd hoped yet.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Hence the rapid IPO. ;)
- deleuze 6y ago
  I'm expecting they'll have a pretty good IPO, but I'm considering going short for that very reason. They're almost a caricature of "evil" startup companies. Peter Thiel's association only makes it worse. Not committed to this thesis though, since it's possible they could be swept up in TINA mania for the next ?? months/years.
  - yters 6y ago
    Scott Adams claims evil businesses tend to do the best.
  - andreilys 6y ago
    What issue do you take with Thiel? I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call him evil.
    - patrickthebold 6y ago
      Well he _is_ a founder of Palantir.
    - randycupertino 6y ago
      He secretly funded a lawsuit against gawker which was pretty shady of him.
      - emilfihlman 6y ago
        >He secretly funded a lawsuit against gawker which was pretty shady of him. You can't be serious. In a court of law, Gawker was found to be (extremely) wrong, and outing people ain't cool. It was anything but shady.
        lalos 6y ago
        The shady part was strategically structuring the damages for Gawker's insurance to not be eligible and ensure bankruptcy. If I remember correctly (don't quote me on this), they lowered it enough for it not to kick in.
- luckydata 6y ago
  Even if the military budget was cut by 25% I suspect it would still be the largest item in the federal budget or close (have no numbers, would love to know if its true). Point being, Palantir is gonna have plenty of money available to harvest under any administration.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    In the 2019 budget, Defense spending as a whole was $676B which is a distant second to Social Security at $1T. If you cut Defense by 25%, it'd be ~$500B and drop behind Medicare which is $644B. You have the wealth of human knowledge at your fingertips, don't spread misinformation. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
    - e7r73uejruf 6y ago
      Most people buy the meme that the US has an overblown military budget because it's a prevalent trope in movies/shows and because when they see the raw number they fail to account for how stupidly enormous the US federal budget is. If you told them it was only around 11ish percent and that most of that was boring stuff like troop salaries they wouldn't believe you. They simply see the cost of a new drone and fail to appreciate the vast sum of money that could be recouped from the tech. Edit: Since the point score on this comment has oscillated up and down fairly quickly, here is a link from the World Bank detailing both total military spending and spending relative to gdp for various/most countries. A lack of consensus is fine but opinions should be informed when possible: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        The comment didn't even say "overblown" which - as an opinion - could be debated. Their comment was "the largest item in the federal budget" which takes near-zero effort to determine if it's true or not.
- 47ruehrj 6y ago
  If you think the coming government is likely to be the dems then I've got a bridge to sell you. Biden's practically a non-presence in the media and most polls supporting him are from the usual partisan combo of CNN, NYT, and WaPo. Incumbent Presidents always have the advantage and Trump is already playing to the public's lockdown and riot fatigue. Senate and House might trade who's in charge of which but the presidency isn't very likely to go to the guy who's still shopping for tokens after killing #MeToo.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > If I were Palantir I'd be worried about the funding from my primary customers (defense, law enforcement, ICE) in the likely coming very Democratic federal government. Why? Palantir grew to be a unicorn (not just a unicorn, but a decacorn) under a Democratic federal government.
  - icey 6y ago
    The political environment is different now, with so many democrats running under a platform of LE reform. It may amount to nothing, or may even be a boon; but it’s uncertain which way it will go for now, just that it’s likely to change. One way to lessen the risk of a negative change would be to IPO now while the numbers still show great growth.
paxys 6y ago
I wonder if the looming possibility of Trump not winning the upcoming election is one of the reasons.

par 6y ago

On the contrary, anything tech related is sky rocketing. The Fed is proving they are willing to buy up just about anything, market highs know no ceiling. Now is the time to pile in with absolutely any tech related offering.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
e74ururu 6y ago
So much this. Most people aren't privacy activists so Palantir is just a high profile contractor to invest in.

albntomat0 6y ago

Bold in which sense? I can think of a range of reasons why any company, and Palantir specifically, could be hesitant.

icey 6y ago

If I were Palantir I'd be worried about the funding from my primary customers (defense, law enforcement, ICE) in the likely coming very Democratic federal government. There's been a lot of noise made about changing how much money is being spent on law enforcement, which would directly impact Palantir's bottom line. If they can IPO and gracefully transition to private sector work, then they'll be golden; but afaict private sector hasn't gone as well as they'd hoped yet.

ethbro 6y ago
Hence the rapid IPO. ;)
deleuze 6y ago
I'm expecting they'll have a pretty good IPO, but I'm considering going short for that very reason. They're almost a caricature of "evil" startup companies. Peter Thiel's association only makes it worse. Not committed to this thesis though, since it's possible they could be swept up in TINA mania for the next ?? months/years.
- yters 6y ago
  Scott Adams claims evil businesses tend to do the best.
- andreilys 6y ago
  What issue do you take with Thiel? I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call him evil.
  - patrickthebold 6y ago
    Well he _is_ a founder of Palantir.
  - randycupertino 6y ago
    He secretly funded a lawsuit against gawker which was pretty shady of him.
    - emilfihlman 6y ago
      >He secretly funded a lawsuit against gawker which was pretty shady of him. You can't be serious. In a court of law, Gawker was found to be (extremely) wrong, and outing people ain't cool. It was anything but shady.
      - lalos 6y ago
        The shady part was strategically structuring the damages for Gawker's insurance to not be eligible and ensure bankruptcy. If I remember correctly (don't quote me on this), they lowered it enough for it not to kick in.
luckydata 6y ago
Even if the military budget was cut by 25% I suspect it would still be the largest item in the federal budget or close (have no numbers, would love to know if its true). Point being, Palantir is gonna have plenty of money available to harvest under any administration.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  In the 2019 budget, Defense spending as a whole was $676B which is a distant second to Social Security at $1T. If you cut Defense by 25%, it'd be ~$500B and drop behind Medicare which is $644B. You have the wealth of human knowledge at your fingertips, don't spread misinformation. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
  - e7r73uejruf 6y ago
    Most people buy the meme that the US has an overblown military budget because it's a prevalent trope in movies/shows and because when they see the raw number they fail to account for how stupidly enormous the US federal budget is. If you told them it was only around 11ish percent and that most of that was boring stuff like troop salaries they wouldn't believe you. They simply see the cost of a new drone and fail to appreciate the vast sum of money that could be recouped from the tech. Edit: Since the point score on this comment has oscillated up and down fairly quickly, here is a link from the World Bank detailing both total military spending and spending relative to gdp for various/most countries. A lack of consensus is fine but opinions should be informed when possible: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      The comment didn't even say "overblown" which - as an opinion - could be debated. Their comment was "the largest item in the federal budget" which takes near-zero effort to determine if it's true or not.
47ruehrj 6y ago
If you think the coming government is likely to be the dems then I've got a bridge to sell you. Biden's practically a non-presence in the media and most polls supporting him are from the usual partisan combo of CNN, NYT, and WaPo. Incumbent Presidents always have the advantage and Trump is already playing to the public's lockdown and riot fatigue. Senate and House might trade who's in charge of which but the presidency isn't very likely to go to the guy who's still shopping for tokens after killing #MeToo.
manfredo 6y ago
> If I were Palantir I'd be worried about the funding from my primary customers (defense, law enforcement, ICE) in the likely coming very Democratic federal government. Why? Palantir grew to be a unicorn (not just a unicorn, but a decacorn) under a Democratic federal government.
- icey 6y ago
  The political environment is different now, with so many democrats running under a platform of LE reform. It may amount to nothing, or may even be a boon; but it’s uncertain which way it will go for now, just that it’s likely to change. One way to lessen the risk of a negative change would be to IPO now while the numbers still show great growth.

paxys 6y ago

I wonder if the looming possibility of Trump not winning the upcoming election is one of the reasons.