4 ms·
P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is abs
by BobbyJo 4mo ago
P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think.
Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.
- stogot 4mo agoThe question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts?
- l23k4 4mo agoHow would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?
- nullstyle 4mo agoYou use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection?
- l23k4 4mo agoCan you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?
- nullstyle 4mo agoCommon sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
- l23k4 4mo ago[flagged]
- nullstyle 4mo agoLol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position. My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
- l23k4 4mo agoCriticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.
- nullstyle2 4mo agonewly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick... I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion. Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it.
- l23k4 4mo ago[flagged]
- 4mo ago
- dghlsakjg 4mo agoPassive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing. This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders.
- l23k4 4mo ago[flagged]
- dghlsakjg 4mo agoIt has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo. I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press.
- l23k4 4mo agoHere's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/index-funds-can-t-say-no-to-spacex https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to.
- dghlsakjg 4mo agoThat is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy, that’s their mandate. That’s the game, to be included in as many indexes as possible that force institutional investors to buy. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq. The SP500 did not waive the rules, and that made above the fold news this week, because it is a major blow to the big IPOs happening this month since they are valued so high. It will be harder for them to move stock if the massive index funds aren’t buying automatically. The big IPOs this month are asking for prices that demand hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of liquidity. Index funds are automatic liquidity, but only if you are on the index. They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles.
- BobbyJo 4mo agoWith the Nasdaq rule changes, almost certainly.
- laughing_man 4mo agoThose rule changes aren't happening.
- l23k4 4mo agoThey became effective last month.
- a2tech 4mo agoMy understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules.
- l23k4 4mo agoWhy "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them!
- nullstyle 4mo agoPlease provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within.
- l23k4 4mo agoIt is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you. And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation. It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.
- ralfd 4mo ago> Sidenote: 3 is actually high. Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.
- doctorpangloss 4mo agoYou're arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about.
- BobbyJo 4mo agoWho's arguing?
- BobbyJo 4mo agoGenerally < 1 is low, between 1 and 3 is in the middle ground, and > 3 is high. However, that all depends on margins, which is why people generally use P/E or forward P/E rather than P/S to compare multiples. Issue here being that P/E is nonsensical for unprofitable companies or companies with very low margins. Spacex's P/E after Google pushed them into profitability by a slim margin would look absolutely stupid. I would also like to point out, that on a forward P/E basis, AAPL is quite overvalued compared to historical norms, but basically every tech company is right now.
- marcosdumay 4mo agoMost companies have a P/S of 1 or 2, almost all have it bellow 4. A few segments of the economy are known to have low revenue/investment ratios, and companies there get P/S up to 7 or so. Then, very few companies have people betting on their growth so much that their P/S get as high as 15. And then you have literally about half a dozen exceptions on the ones S&P tracks that get higher than that.
- burnte 4mo agoNothing about Apple is representative of a normal business.
- rbanffy 4mo agoIt’s an interesting phenomenon: being Apple is one of their key sales drivers. The brand is worth more than the business itself.
- rbanffy 4mo agoNumber like this might appear when a company is expected to create a revolutionary thing that upends multiple markets. I would consider a number much larger than 3 in SpaceX’s case, but 94 feels, indeed, excessive. It’s almost like the future we were promised in the 1960’s would immediately materialise the moment launch costs drop. Starship will be revolutionary if it pans out the way we expect (as the shuttle would have been, had it kept the low cost promise), but that’s not enough to warrant that 94 number.
- amluto 4mo agoSpaceX may well revolutionize multiple markets. But I really don’t see the sub-business of building large datacenters and leasing them out, hopefully at a profit, as revolutionizing anything. Also, SpaceX has no particular competitive advantages here — the list of competitors is huge.