4 ms·

I have no crystal ball, but I feel uneasy when they change basic rules about indizes right before these IPOs. There are a lot of retirements on the line just by

by mawadev 4mo ago

I have no crystal ball, but I feel uneasy when they change basic rules about indizes right before these IPOs. There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact. Maybe big tech gambled too close to the sun and found a way out? Whether something pops or not, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth this can be done so easily, don't you think?

jmuguy 4mo ago
This is it entirely. I don't really care if the pessimists or optimists or somewhere in between ends up being correct. What possible reason is there to change the rules around the indexes unless these companies and their backers know that time in the market is going to expose that they're overvalued and they want to force someone else to be holding the bag when that happens.
- kryogen1c 4mo ago
  Is it possible SpaceX is not massively overvalued and delaying its index approval unnecessarily slows its economic output by needlessly restricting its access to funding, harming us all collectively?
wrsh07 4mo ago
> There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact 1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio. 2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total portfolio. If it went to zero nobody would lose their shirts, they'd lose <.1% of their portfolio.
- JohnMakin 4mo ago
  Am I misreading 2) or are you saying you think there’s a reasonable chance spaceX market cap could become 10+ trillion in the next year?
  - Aperocky 4mo ago
    Even Mars becoming a state would not support that kind of valuation.
  - wrsh07 4mo ago
    i'm not saying they will justify that market cap, but Tesla always hit market cap numbers years before they could possibly be justified and once they were justified the stock price would go right up again into nonsense territory
    - Saline9515 4mo ago
      Tesla ipo'd at $1.6 bil. SpaceX is roughly x1000 that.
      - wrsh07 4mo ago
        Right, I mean Tesla had generated lifetime revenue of 150mm, SpaceX did >18 billion last year. They have a monopoly on cheap space flight, just signed a big data center contract with a big user of compute (and built that data center quickly), have good internet service, etc etc Seems worth at least 100x, and it doesn't seem surprising that it gets an extra 10x
        Saline9515 4mo ago
        Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google combined. And I agree that SpaceX would be correctly valued at 180b. Space TAM is not so large. Starlink ARPU is decreasing fast as well. And they rent the data center because Grok doesn't have enough usage, overall it's a bad usage of capital.
        wrsh07 4mo ago
        > Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google This is a confused take Revenue is an excellent basis for comparison of valuations if the growth rates are similar. Nvidia is worth what it is because of its vertical growth rate If company A makes a 100U this year and I think it's going to double by the end of the year (to 200U) I would rather hold shares of that than company B which makes 150U per year and it's growing 10% yoy. Next year I'll have a company making 200U, whereas B will only be making 165U. So I would pay more for A today than I would for B. As an aside, Apple and Google sum to more revenue than Walmart and have better growth. So your claim was correct five years ago and the growth rates have literally shown you why Apple and Google have higher market caps I haven't even gotten to explain the space TAM, but suffice to say black car tam was small before Uber. (What % of black car cabs did Uber provide in their first year offering the service)
- supertroop 4mo ago
  No cfpa would claim #1. At retirement you are not balanced, you are in low risk funds or bonds.
  - wrsh07 4mo ago
    [dead]
trismus 4mo ago
[dead]

by mawadev 4mo ago

jmuguy 4mo ago

This is it entirely. I don't really care if the pessimists or optimists or somewhere in between ends up being correct. What possible reason is there to change the rules around the indexes unless these companies and their backers know that time in the market is going to expose that they're overvalued and they want to force someone else to be holding the bag when that happens.

kryogen1c 4mo ago
Is it possible SpaceX is not massively overvalued and delaying its index approval unnecessarily slows its economic output by needlessly restricting its access to funding, harming us all collectively?

wrsh07 4mo ago

> There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact 1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio. 2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total portfolio. If it went to zero nobody would lose their shirts, they'd lose <.1% of their portfolio.

JohnMakin 4mo ago
Am I misreading 2) or are you saying you think there’s a reasonable chance spaceX market cap could become 10+ trillion in the next year?
- Aperocky 4mo ago
  Even Mars becoming a state would not support that kind of valuation.
- wrsh07 4mo ago
  i'm not saying they will justify that market cap, but Tesla always hit market cap numbers years before they could possibly be justified and once they were justified the stock price would go right up again into nonsense territory
  - Saline9515 4mo ago
    Tesla ipo'd at $1.6 bil. SpaceX is roughly x1000 that.
    - wrsh07 4mo ago
      Right, I mean Tesla had generated lifetime revenue of 150mm, SpaceX did >18 billion last year. They have a monopoly on cheap space flight, just signed a big data center contract with a big user of compute (and built that data center quickly), have good internet service, etc etc Seems worth at least 100x, and it doesn't seem surprising that it gets an extra 10x
      - Saline9515 4mo ago
        Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google combined. And I agree that SpaceX would be correctly valued at 180b. Space TAM is not so large. Starlink ARPU is decreasing fast as well. And they rent the data center because Grok doesn't have enough usage, overall it's a bad usage of capital.
        wrsh07 4mo ago
        > Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google This is a confused take Revenue is an excellent basis for comparison of valuations if the growth rates are similar. Nvidia is worth what it is because of its vertical growth rate If company A makes a 100U this year and I think it's going to double by the end of the year (to 200U) I would rather hold shares of that than company B which makes 150U per year and it's growing 10% yoy. Next year I'll have a company making 200U, whereas B will only be making 165U. So I would pay more for A today than I would for B. As an aside, Apple and Google sum to more revenue than Walmart and have better growth. So your claim was correct five years ago and the growth rates have literally shown you why Apple and Google have higher market caps I haven't even gotten to explain the space TAM, but suffice to say black car tam was small before Uber. (What % of black car cabs did Uber provide in their first year offering the service)
supertroop 4mo ago
No cfpa would claim #1. At retirement you are not balanced, you are in low risk funds or bonds.
- wrsh07 4mo ago
  [dead]

trismus 4mo ago

[dead]