11 ms·
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own aro
by tristanj 5mo ago
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX.
Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%.
SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns 5% of SpaceX, so they make 50 billion dollars. Google spends 10 billion and makes 50 billion, $40 billion profit.
The even better part is that because of this deal, SpaceX is now profitable. The S&P requires companies to demonstrate 12 months of profits before they can enter the S&P 500 index. SpaceX lobbied to have this profitability requirement removed, but S&P said no and refused to rewrite the rules.
Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules, and they get to join the index next year without a rule change.
Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved.
- iririririr 5mo agowhy revenue that barely cover the estimated revenue (and depending on assets yet to be acquired) boost valuation? is everyone an idiot?
- lelanthran 5mo ago> SpaceX is trading at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then the single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. That final number doesn't make sense: if you're trading shares at $X revenue, increasing the revenue by $Y multiplier doesn't increase the share price by the same multiplier.
- IshKebab 5mo agoYou're right. Share price isn't based purely on a multiplier of current revenue.
- zulux 5mo agoBut they did need to shore up that p/e ratio. Got to assuage our inner Ben Graham.
- tristanj 5mo agoSure it might not stay at 94x. But as long as SpaceX trades above 20x revenue, Google makes money from this deal. And the bigger play is this deal pushes SpaceX over the finish line for S&P 500 inclusion. That's worth tens of billions for everyone involved.
- chrisandchris 5mo agoI rreally dislike how big corp figured out that the can sell stuff to each other without actually moving some good. Looking at you, Nvidia... I have a feeling that the ordinary people will again pay for that.
- fooqux 5mo agoThis sounds exactly like the kind of thing that will be outlawed in thirty years after tracing back the root cause of the second great depression.
- dgellow 5mo agoThat would require regulators to actually pay attention, something they haven’t done actively since a long, long time
- dawnerd 5mo agoFirst step would be to prevent the regulators from profiting to begin with.
- WarOnPrivacy 5mo agoIn my experience, if we don't (meaningfully) root out corruption and ineptitude, we will continue to be governed+leveraged by one/both.
- boppo1 5mo ago
- benl 5mo agoSpaceX is valued at that revenue multiple because of its expected revenue growth rate. This deal is part of that revenue growth. So the new revenue would be already partially or even fully priced-in. Perhaps it reduces uncertainty around the growth rate, but expectations were already sky-high, as shown by the multiple!
- zdragnar 5mo agoAs an ignoramus to these things.... there are only just so many Googles though. Having made a significant jump, are they really expected to continue that growth?
- benl 5mo agoThe bet is that demand for AI tokens will continue to grow exponentially. And that SpaceX will be able to deploy and rent out GPUs to serve those tokens faster than anyone else. The wrinkle is that they are planning to deploy those GPUs in space. That’s what people are most skeptical about, I think!
- Alive-in-2025 5mo agoSpace data centers need years of time to design, build, and deploy, 5-10 at least, and that's after they solve their multiple very difficult or impossible problems. How will they cool them? There are just simple ideas like giant structures to radiate the heat away, but you say you need to put lots of mass in orbit? Like fsd, will take decades to figure things out.
- benl 5mo agoWell yes it will be hard, and hence maybe not economical, and that’s why many people are skeptical of the business case (myself included btw). But satellite cooling already exists (Starlink v2 satellites dissipate heat at over a kilowatt I believe), so that’s why other people find it plausible.
- XorNot 5mo ago
- SlinkyOnStairs 5mo ago> Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved. Same thing they used to say about Lehman.
- mannanj 5mo agoDo you really think its honest to call this Financial Engineering over Fraud?
- tristanj 5mo agoNo. The definition of fraud is "lying for financial gain". This doesn't qualify.
- mannanj 5mo agoHeres the way I understand it as a child could understand. You are google. I am your friend who wants to sell lemonade. You have invested in my stand and own a piece. You propose a deal, You'll buy $11 of lemonade from me every week. Does my stand look like it sells way more lemonade, than it would in reality? And since you own a piece, your own piece has appreciated. You ran the numbers and that spending of yours helps appreciate it considerably more (feel free to plugin the actual spaces-google numbers here and change the analogy). Are the people who invest in my business after you, on its new valuation, aware that you are the one buying most my lemonade? And are you going to keep buying or will stop buying soon (probably as soon as you can unload your investment on strangers). So the fraud and lie as you said, is the behavior is not as real as it looks. Am I thinking this through wrong, what do you think? Edit: my definition of fraud is simpler and different from yours. a "lie" need not be there. fraud is any intentional misrepresentation (i.e. misrepresenting income to the public).
- tristanj 5mo agoYour time is better spent reading up and understanding the definition of fraud, rather than typing up hypothetical stories of what you imagine fraud is. Fraud is: * an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed; * made by one person to another; * with knowledge of its falsity; * for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies; * resulting in injury or damage. Neither the Google/SpaceX situation nor your story constitute fraud. RTFM.
- noir_lord 5mo ago> Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved. Except for people who have pensions/investments in whole market class investments who become exposed to an over valued company with a propped up value.
- benl 5mo agoIf whole market means whole market, then such investments are exposed to companies who are fairly valued, companies who are massively overvalued, and companies who are massively undervalued, and the whole range in between. If you want to start picking and choosing which companies are overvalued and which are undervalued, don’t invest in whole market funds. But most people are not good at that!
- ericd 5mo agoAlso, there’s a long history of companies that people yell about being overvalued being the drivers of index returns, because one of the major drivers is growth rate, whereas retail investors tend to look mostly at current state.
- nibbleyou 5mo agoI don't understand this logic. Does whole market mean scamming companies too?
- tony69 5mo agoYes. That’s what passive investing is. You give money to the passive fund, the passive fund buys the market. No regard to price or any other metric.
- matwood 5mo agoFun fact, both Enron and Lehman Brothers were in the S&P 500 when they went bankrupt. So yes, the whole market or even the market of the largest companies, includes some that may not be great companies. The beauty of the index is you don't have to know or care, since it'll take care of itself over time.
- echoangle 5mo agoIsn’t the revenue modifier a result and not the cause? Would you really expect a company to increase proportionally in value when they increase their revenue?
- mgraczyk 5mo agoFor your math to make sense, Google would have to sell its stake this year There may be more to it than buying compute but what you're saying does not make sense for Google. More likely Google wants a good relationship with SpaceX and possibly to buoy the stock, but it's a bad NPV trade
- npn 5mo agoOn the other hand, google does not lose all the money in that deal. Computation is still expensive. So at most they lose like 200M each month. Peanut compares to the potentially gain of the IPO.
- IAmGraydon 5mo agoSo masterful that a random guy on HN can see right through it. Let’s just call it what it is. It’s just basic fraud. They created a very temporary revenue injection right around the time of the IPO to defraud investors as much as they possibly can. Some businesses do this kind of thing just before they die because…why not?
- tristanj 5mo agoNo it is not. You are conflating the colloquial definition of fraud, with the legal definition of fraud. Fraud has a defined meaning.
- pqtyw 5mo agoOr SpaceX just has too many GPUs and nothing to do with them besides renting them out to someone since their AI products suck and nobody uses them?
- otterley 5mo agoI don’t think your math is correct. Profit is revenues minus expenses. Unless Google’s purchase of compute brings SpaceX’s revenues into profit territory (such that their total revenues exceed their expenses), SpaceX still won’t be profitable. This is accounting 101. Google’s investment in SpaceX is completely orthogonal to the analysis. Equity investments aren’t revenue for the issuer. (Gains on sale would be revenue to the investor, in which case, this would be Google, not SpaceX.)
- tjwebbnorfolk 5mo agoAn equity interest in a company is a perpetual claim on future profits. Equity IS securitized profits. Google's purchase sends cash to to SpaceX, which they report as revenue, and which they earn a profit from.
- otterley 5mo agoSpaceX cannot report Google’s investment as revenue on its balance sheet. Full stop. Equity investments are reported as shareholder equity. If you don’t believe me, read FASB ASC 605-606, ask your friendly neighborhood CPA—or, perhaps so you’ll earn a valuable lesson about confidently spreading bullshit about subjects in which you are clearly uneducated (or, at best, superficially educated), try it yourself in a public company and go to jail. You don’t know what you’re talking about and are way out of your lane. Stop now. In fact, you should retract your parent comment and apologize to the community for leading them astray. Did you even try to ask even ChatGPT or Claude about this first?
- ppseafield 5mo ago> Under the terms of the deal, Google will pay SpaceX $920 million per month from October 2026 through June 2029 for access to “approximately 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, CPUs, memory, and other related components.” That part is not equity - that's revenue for services rendered. But a commitment for nearly $1B/mo in revenue will likely increase SpaceX's share price, and Google owns some of those shares, so their holdings will increase in value. Additionally: > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- whateveracct 5mo agoprompt engineering, harness engineering, agentic engineering, financial engineering AI is really a pioneering engineering field
- amluto 5mo agoI sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing. AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite currently looking like an appreciating asset, will actually depreciate faster than aircraft in the long run.
- coke12 5mo agoComparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple. I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!
- selfsimilar 5mo agoI would short xAI but the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent. Plus all the foolishness to prop it up with other businesses just seems like bad accounting.
- spwa4 5mo agoI don't think you can short it before the IPO happens. Well, unless you've got a few millions and go to a bank and have them make a product for you specifically. But for normal people, for now, not happening.
- amluto 5mo agoI am comparing SpaceX’s datacenter-and-GPU leasing business to aircraft leasing. It’s possible, and common, for one large company to have multiple business lines, each worthy of a very different P/E multiplier. In principle you end up with a weighted average of some sort. edit: Matt Levine has some great articles about this phenomenon and how some companies try to juice it.
- browningstreet 5mo ago
- golergka 5mo agoExcept they’re paying $30b (the deal is signed for almost 3 years), there’s no reason to believe that SpaceX maintains revenue multiples and this deal creates a trillion in value, liquid cash is not the same as pre-IPO shares. And finally, the deal comes down to $11 per hour of h100 equivalent, which is pretty much within market which experiences a severe lack of supply.
- next_xibalba 5mo ago> this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars That's not how valuations work. Also, it is not unlikely that SpaceX's valuation drops post-IPO (tech was 6.65% in the most recent trading session) due to its very rich valuation and a long tenured investor based that is probably looking to get liquid. Google is renting compute from SpaceX because they need GPUs and SpaceX owns a huge supply of them and has excess capacity bc no one uses Grok. Google has stated that this is a temporary arrangement while they continue to build out their own capacity.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- mock-possum 5mo agoUtterly nauseating. Why would google help prop up this company and its figurehead? Maybe this is finally the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me and google.
- cindyllm 5mo ago[dead]
- wavefunction 5mo agoIt seems like Silicon Valley has decided on solidarity among tech billionaires and they're gonna take average Americans' wealth to keep themselves semi-relevant globally as China assumes global dominance. This is after insulting and demeaning the rest of the world, they plan to try to sell anemic services to other countries in whose politics they're also meddling. Circular agreements promising to purchase goods and services without the money in the bank, but you can show your promissory note to a guy with his own promissory note who then writes you a new promissory note based on your first one to take to another guy with his promissory notes, look at all the paper.
- alt227 5mo ago> Why would google help prop up this company and its figurehead? Simple, money. When Billions of $ are in the picture, people really don't care about ethics.
- laughing_man 5mo agoThey're not "propping up" anything. They're buying a service.
- pqtyw 5mo agoWell Google needs GPUs, SpaceX has GPUs but nothing to do with them since their AI business failed. Why is that insufficient?
- seydor 5mo ago> and makes 50 billion assuming google sells, the stock tanks, nobody wants to buy next year is this masterful? more like a scam
- cperciva 5mo agoNow with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules, and they get to join the index next year without a rule change. Didn't they also run up against a "minimum free float" rule?
- AustinDev 5mo agoThe company has been around since 2002, I'm sure plenty of insiders will cash out in the next calendar year to satisfy the minimum free float rule by the time they're eligible.
- cperciva 5mo agoTrue. The amount of free float increasing dramatically will probably also depress the share price.
- nibbleyou 5mo ago> masterful piece of financial engineering Love how we assign positive adjectives to unethical practices by corporates
- gigatexal 5mo agoI think the op was being a bit satirical
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 5mo agoI don't think so, considering a substantial proportion of their comments on this site seems to be fanboying for SpaceX in particular and anything AI in general.
- gigatexal 5mo agos/think/hope ?
- alt227 5mo agoI wouldnt class 'masterful' as a positive adjective personally. EDIT: Downvotes? Not sure why. I would say Darth Vader is masterful of the force, and even that Donald Trump is masterful at being provocative. Masterful is not definitively positive or negative, it just describes being very good at something.
- PeterStuer 5mo agoSo SpaceX is selling inference capacity. Who else is? What were the competing offers for Google and Anthropic?
- adgjlsfhk1 5mo agoanthropic isn't selling capacity. they're using all of theirs and more
- PeterStuer 5mo agoAnthropic is buying a lott of inference from SpaceX. Where else could they have turned?
- jgord 5mo agoby inference .. do you mean renting GPU compute ?
- jgord 5mo agoGoogled it : > Anthropic is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion per month (approximately $15 billion annually) to use the computing infrastructure at the Colossus and Colossus II data center clusters in Memphis, Tennessee. This massive infrastructure deal gives Anthropic access to over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs (mostly H100 and H200 chips) for large-scale AI inference.
- bendbro 5mo agoThey still need 10% float and 1 year of bake time, so the rules are still doing some work for us
- tristanj 5mo agoFloat will be 40-50% after lockups expire later this year.
- ksec 5mo agoThis is the first time I get to understand why it is important to have big companies as your early investors.
- matwood 5mo ago> SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules We'll need to see audited financials, but if this part is true people are going to be upset. I wonder if all the people who have been acting like the S&P rules came down from the mountain with Moses will start lobbying to change them to keep SpaceX out? And to be clear, I think SpaceX is way overvalued and I wouldn't buy it stand alone. But there are a lot of companies in the S&P 500 I wouldn't buy stand alone, yet I still own a a lot of an S&P 500 ETF. /shrug
- BLKNSLVR 5mo agoBrilliant meaning clever, like a well thought out scam. Not brilliant meaning something actually positive for humanity in any respect at all.
- bko 5mo agoMaybe they just need compute. Isn't that the more obvious reason. It's good that they own part of them and that's a bonus but the idea that the senior brass is orchestrating this to increase the paper value of something some division in google owns strikes me as wrong.
- OtomotO 5mo agoSo they have followed the rainbow and found some pots of gold... And then they all lived happily ever after. Apart from the peasants of course.
- jpmattia 5mo ago> and they get to join the index next year without a rule change. You seem to have ignored the 50% float rule. SpaceX is proposing to go public with about 5% of the float, but S&P requires 50%. Do we think that the market will absorb the release of 45% of the shares? I'm dubious.
- tristanj 5mo agoWhat 50% float rule? S&P only requires 10% minimum float for index inclusion. And while SpaceX is IPOing with 4% float, after the 6 months lockup many more shares will release and float will increase to 40-50%. So after 12 months, SpaceX meets the S&P inclusion requirements.
- LeoPanthera 5mo ago> Google spends 10 billion and makes 50 billion, $40 billion profit. And gets a datacenter.
- adgjlsfhk1 5mo agothat's the best part they might not, and don't really care. they've already made $30b when is the dc never shows up
- tedd4u 5mo agoIn parallel to renting AI compute from SpaceX, Google ("Alphabet") is also doing an $80 billion public stock offering to raise funds for building more AI compute. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/alphabet-to-raise-80-billion-from-stock-sales-to-fund-ai-buildout.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/alphabet-to-raise-80-billion...
- Lplololopo 5mo agoIt only shows that Musk can't make xAI profitable and he needs to push numbers higher for the IPO which he needs for <i actually do not know> his ego? debt correction? Having enough money for Starship development?
- toddmorey 5mo agoI don’t know. Give me a 94x multiple and I can make any financial deal look brilliant. I think a better word is just opportunistic.
- 7e 5mo agoThe market should consider this a huge negative: SpaceX is renting out their compute because they have failed to make use of it themselves. This calls into question whether they have any talent in xAI at all.
- saltyoldman 5mo agoSounds like the system works like all other hacked systems on this planet. We need to fix our broken systems.
- gmd63 5mo agoI wouldn't call it brilliant. It's like cancer cells celebrating how fast they're growing.
- testing22321 5mo agoIsn’t that the entire point of a capitalist economy? What is the alternative?
- gmd63 5mo agoNo, the point is to implement laws that foster holistic growth, not gamesmanship that ends in terminal illness.
- testing22321 5mo ago> holistic growth I have never before heard that term in regards to the economy. Everyone has always wanted maximum growth now, future be dammed.
- dzhiurgis 5mo agoPeople want to live now.
- palmotea 5mo ago>> I wouldn't call it brilliant. It's like cancer cells celebrating how fast they're growing. > Isn’t that the entire point of a capitalist economy? > What is the alternative? If the point is to be cancer, then the alternative is to kill it. Things are getting so out of hand, this former-libertarian is getting to the point were he'd support any market regulation that makes libertarians cry.
- Gareth321 5mo ago> SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. This isn’t how valuations work. The PE ratio isn’t fixed. It doesn’t scale with revenue. It’s based on projected future growth. This kind of deal is expected, meaning this deal likely won’t move SpaceX’s market cap much. Certainly not by anywhere close to $1T. That’s +60% of the entire pre-IPO market cap. Google is doing this because they need more compute and TSMC is booked out for years.
- overgard 5mo ago"Clever" is not a word you want to hear in front of accounting..
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> because of this deal, SpaceX is now profitable This is a huge claim for which we have no evidence. $920mm/month at 30% datacenter margins yields $3bn in gross profit. Less in net income. That doesn’t cover SpaceX’s losses.
- bluegatty 5mo agoI'm sorry this is a misplaced framing. ==> Those facilities are being leased because Grok is failing. Space X does not want to lease away it's competitive advantage to a primary competitor. It'd be like Tesla leasing factory space to Toyota and Ford. 'GPUs, Energy and Data Centres' are a hugely critical resource in the AI race and SpaceX is now leasing it away. Will it make money? Sure. But this is 'Strategic Fumbling'. The cash flow happens to help them leading up to IPO - that's a side show.
- poisonfountain 5mo agoIt is probably both.
- d0gsg0w00f 5mo agoI think they're sacrificing short term terrestrial GPU advantage to fund their space GPU mega-advantage. It's a risky bet, but if it pays off then SpaceX will be one of the most powerful companies the earth has ever seen.
- bluegatty 5mo agoIt's not that complicated, and the 'datacentres in space' is a myth. They have rapidly depreciating assets in GPUs and they can't use them. Because Grok is failing. They are licensing out their unused capacity. XAi is not strongly related to Space X - they were folded into one thing because XAi was losing money and failing (the Social Media part is worse). XAi isn't really some kind of strategic advantage for Space X and even though revenues from the data centres may be positive - it's a 'stop gap' - it's probabaly not a 'net positive' thing to do. The best thing for Space X would have been to never merge wht XAI. The second best thing for Space X would have been to close XAi/Twitter lines of business a long time ago. The 'Wrench in the Logic' is that by putting these things together, EM is able to dupe so many people into so many ridiculous concepts. Data centres in space, 1M people on Mars, all sorts of crazy things. It's a bit like Putin's and Steve Bannon's Media Strategy: 'Flood the Zone' with nonsense, and people speculate as to all kinds of things. The Space X IPO is a 'retail push' meaning he needs to get all the Dentists in America and their Private Bankers to want to 'Hold the Bag' and then keep holding it for a long time. Space X - at it's core - is a decent company, wrapped in layers and layers of hyperbolic nonsense. All it takes is a bit of rational thinking to wade through what is plausible, and what is not, and we can see how overvalued this is. Note: this is different than the other 2 AI IPOs which have some sketchy economics - but the premise is not far fetched, 'that people will want AI in large quantities'.
- manlymuppet 5mo agoBut Google loses $11 billion per year, and they gain $50 billion... in stock? As far as I know they really will be paying $11 billion annually in liquid cash to SpaceX (not a small ask) starting this year, and all they get in return is more money on paper? What incentive do they have to help SpaceX out like this at great cost, if they're not actually buying something valuable? Why are they incentivized to do this if it's just an empty deal and financial engineering? Genuine, good faith question: what are they getting out of this?
- simonebrunozzi 5mo agoI would bet that there is a nice clause in that contract that gives exit options to Google at year 1, 1.5, 2, etc. Perhaps they only need to pay $11B, or $16.5B, before exiting the contract. Plus, instead of getting nothing for these $11B/year, they surely get some compute power that should have some value.
- manlymuppet 5mo agoThat's what I'm saying though. They must be getting something out of this deal, otherwise why would they be going through with it? The explanation that this is just financial engineering (which to me, means neither Google nor SpaceX is getting anything out of this other than looking better on paper) doesn't make sense to me. How does this financial engineering benefit Google? Even if they have an exit option, why is Google (a private, separate, self-interested firm) giving a single dollar to SpaceX if the deal isn't mutually beneficial?
- tristanj 5mo agoBecause Google owns a sizable stake of SpaceX, and for every $1 they give SpaceX they get $5 in investment return.
- manlymuppet 5mo agoThat $5 return doesn't actually materialize the way you're framing it. Even if your 94x multiple held perfectly (a big if), Google's "return" here is unrealized appreciation on an illiquid, minority stake. They can't spend it. And if they try to sell post-IPO, the act of selling a large block would push the price down, shrinking the very gains you're describing. Meanwhile, the $11B/year in cash going out the door is very real and liquid and hits Google's income statement immediately. So the actual trade is: guaranteed cash expense now, in exchange for speculative paper gains later on a stake they can't easily exit. Even if you assume bad faith on Google's part here, no CFO in their right mind would see this situation as an easy 5:1 return. The simpler explanation is the one Google gave: they need bridge compute capacity because Gemini Enterprise demand is outrunning their own datacenter buildout, and SpaceX has 110K GPUs available now.
- arbirk 5mo agoAnd that grants S&P (plus the existing NASDAQ indices). All US pensioners are bagholders for an illegal immigrant lol
- gehsty 5mo agoI feel like you are missing the difference between cash out the door and the market cap value of a business. One is a real tangible thing, the other is a function of the stock market. I don’t think google would spend this money if they did not need this compute, and who know what will happen with SpaceX valuation over the course of a few yrs. Most things like this are more straightforward than we want them to be - this feels like google paying market value for compute?
- tw04 5mo agoFrom don’t bee evil to: f all of your 401ks, Sundar needs to join the billionaires club!
- andy_ppp 5mo agoGreat for everyone except those who invest in index funds (directly or indirectly) and want some level of stability?
- fooker 5mo agoThe best thing about leveraged schemes like this is that if/when it fails it takes down everyone involved.
- jmbwell 5mo agoWho benefits from all this brilliant deal making who doesn’t already have plenty of money? If we are going to invent money out of paperwork maneuvers, you’d think we could invent a way to fund healthcare and schools.
- idontpost 5mo ago[dead]
- up2isomorphism 5mo agoI am not sure you can called this kind of thing “financial engineering”, every market manipulator know this.
- fHr 5mo agowhat the actual fuck haha
- btbuildem 5mo agoI can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just really really deeply invested into it