6 ms·
Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings
- mattmaroon 4mo agoEverybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year. And to be clear, I’m not saying it’s a good thing. I just don’t think it matters so much.
- Retric 4mo agoWithout rapid purchasing by indexes SpaceX’s stock would likely to tank as ever more people would be able to sell over the first year. It’s a 24 year old company with a current high flying stock price based on very questionable numbers.
- pclmulqdq 4mo agoWe all said that about Tesla for years, and a lot of people got burned on the trade. This time may be different, but it also may not be.
- Retric 4mo agoTesla’s numbers looked vastly more reasonable. “In 2025, SpaceX generated $18.7 billion in revenue, with its Starlink satellite internet service accounting for $11.39 billion, or 61% of total sales.” Tesla had higher revenue number in at the start of 2019, when it had a market cap of ~0.06 trillion. Further Tesla was highly volatile in 2021 despite huge earnings growth with some people bank when it fell from 1.2T to 0.34T before recovering.
- pclmulqdq 4mo agoYes, Tesla was ridiculous at the time, but Tesla’s valuation at the time is normal for tech companies these days. However, the main comparison, which Elon has been trying desperately to escape, is traditional automakers. If you compare how out-of-line Tesla’s PE and PS ratios are against Toyota and other car makers, it’s about the same ratio as SpaceX to tech companies today.
- mattmaroon 4mo agoTesla’s P/E ratio is currently 365. They have less than 1% market share, and declining, weak profits, products that seem to be suffering from weak updates and brand harm due to Elon’s politics, and competitors outpacing them from all sides. Toyota’s P/E is under ten. They’ll make more money selling cars this quarter than TSLA will in ten years. TSLA prices have never been within an order of magnitude of reasonable. They’ve been publicly traded for so long that some of the people legally driving them weren’t born when they IPOed. They’re not a startup and haven’t been in a while.
- Retric 4mo agoI agree Tesla’s stock is horribly overvalued, it’s the poster child for the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. My point is as a benchmark it still makes SpaceX look like a bad investment.
- mattmaroon 4mo agoRight and my point is that whether or not it’s a bad investment makes absolutely no difference to the people who own the shares because the price is divorced from that. SpaceX shares only have to stay irrational for six months for this rule change to have had no effect.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Retric 4mo ago
- rayiner 4mo agoI also remember lots of people saying Uber wasn’t a $100B company.
- nullstyle 4mo agoWith several large bets on the table with starship that have yet to play out. Remember mars by 2024? I think that was around the time they started accepting deposits on tesla semi.
- saturn8601 4mo agoThey shipped the Semi though. Yes the situation is bad but its not vaporware. Musk had to scam the markets to survive in late 2017/2018
- shigawire 4mo agoThe problem is the stock is not valued based on the space part. It's sky-high valuation is based on absurd projected AI revenues.
- nullstyle 4mo agoWe’ll have to agree to disagree on this one; anytime someone has to scam the markets to survive it’s my opinion they deserve jail and ruination, not a harem.
- Panzer04 4mo agoDepends, they've gone to pains to ensure the indexes will buy as share lockups end. It's dodgy no matter how you look at. The one saving grace is s&p isnt changing anything, and they were by far the biggest index.
- sidibe 4mo agoThe whole IPO was designed to be like a short squeeze where index funds have to buy soon but there's not enough shares. For the little float that's available they are weighting it significantly more than they should by previous rules. They need to have tens of billions worth of what was 70 billion by next week, and retail investors who got in on the IPO were told by their brokers if they sell early on they will not get to participate in future IPOs. There were not enough shares actually trading for the index funds to fulfill their requirements that's why the price keeps going up
- downrightmike 4mo agoChina enters the chat https://spacenews.com/china-conducts-4-launches-in-3-days-but-silence-follows-kuaizhou-11-launch/ https://spacenews.com/china-conducts-4-launches-in-3-days-bu...
- ribosometronome 4mo agoMoving to have 401ks investing in it when 5% of the stock is publicly available versus 30-40%+ that would have been available on the previous timelines seems like it could have pretty dramatic effects on its price.
- loeg 4mo agoThe relevant indices (S&P500, Vanguard) buy in proportion to available float -- i.e., its market cap is weighted by 5%. Only Nasdaq 100 ignores float, stupidly, but almost no money, especially 401(k) money, is in that.
- nrmitchi 4mo agoThis may be true (I'm sure it is, but I haven't verified) but the large majority of people do not know this, which is why hearing "my retirement account is going to be forced to by a bunch of spacex at a $2.5T valuation" makes them.... uneasy.
- mschuster91 4mo agoOh there are ETFs that track Nasdaq 100.
- keernan 4mo agoMusk tried mightily to get S&P to change their 12 month rule to 15 days but they refused. Nasdaq, however, caved to Musk and agreed to change the rules of its Index - from a 12 months wait to 15 days - in exchange for Musk agreeing to list SpaceX on Nasdaq's exchange. There are ETFs that were issued tied to the Nasdaq 100 which are therefore legally bound to buy SpaceX. But the biggest immorality is the SEC allowing Musk's attempt to manipulate the market by: 1. Setting an IPO price for SpaceX (which absorbed xAi and its money guzzling losses) at unsustainable, incredibly inflated prices; and then 2. Putting incredible pressure on SP500 and other index makers to change their rules to force the purchase of SpaceX at those sky high prices (in an IPO, company gets to set the IPO price). It's legal. At least in the eyes of the SEC which, of course, is an institution that is controlled by the wealthiest who control the markets, so of course it's legal. But it is outrageous market manipulation that is fraudulent in its intent to enrich the wealthiest man on earth at the expense of ever wage earner putting her money into Index Funds. Thank goodness the S&P and CRSP refused to change their rules. Otherwise the shifting of risk from Musk onto the shoulders of every working American would have been complete.
- HWR_14 4mo agoThey probably won't be on the S&P for years, because of profitability requirements.
- redox99 4mo agoIf they can keep google and anthropic deals, they're already profitable.
- stackskipton 4mo agoThat's huge IF, both of them have 90 day exit clause, and it's not like it's a long-term business. Those deals are doable because xAI failed and SpaceX has a bunch of spare compute lying around they can rent out. However, SpaceX doesn't make the hardware or software so moat is nonexistent. If compute capacity increases or AI demand decreases, Google/Anthropic will likely skip SpaceX and just buy their own hardware in their own datacenters or go back to their own datacenters.
- redox99 4mo agoI think anthropic needs that compute. They'll probably rent it as long as they can. They aren't really in the datacenter business. Google yes, I think they'll stop at some point.
- HWR_14 4mo agoThere is no way that Elon Musk wants to be leasing out compute. He'd rather be using that compute to power Grok.
- asveikau 4mo agoI got a good investment vehicle for you. How would you like to purchase shares in the Brooklyn bridge? You could see returns in the form of tolls.
- mschuster91 4mo ago> It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. A stock's value can disappear in a matter of days to a degree it leads to a complete collapse. It has happened before, see Enron or Wirecard. > It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year. Sure, but it's still not wise to let unripe stocks into most American and RoW retirement funds. There's a reason why many complex software projects keep some sort of "staging" tree, and the stock markets should do so as well.
- wolvoleo 4mo agoBubbles always blow. Maybe not in 3 months but eventually someone will figure that those trillions can't possibly be made back ever again. And then the fall down is hard.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- cm2187 4mo agoPlus if AI is indeed a bubble, investors are already up to the neck in it. Think of all the key stocks of the S&P and Nasdaq that are lifted by AI: nvidia, microsoft, amazon, oracle, micron, intel, amd, etc. And add their lenders and the whole datacenter supply chain.
- anotherhue 4mo agoWhat exactly can an individual do? For many their accounts have limited fund choices and if you don't want to pay high ER for fund manager's pedicures then you end up on an index, which (S&P500 excluded) have now bent the knee. Mine are on russel indexes so I have no choice. Short spacex is the only answer I've heard but I'm wise enough to know I don't have the mentality for derivatives.
- _--__--__ 4mo agoThe vast majority of American employees are not maxing out every tax advantaged retirement account instrument, and putting everything in a 401(k) past the employer match level is not advisable exactly because of the limited investment choices.
- bdangubic 4mo agoexcept if you self-employed. I have maxed the shit out of my 401k (i401k, self-managed) and after 3 decade career have more saved than I can spend in 8 lifetimes
- satvikpendem 4mo agoI too love solo 401ks. Saving 70k tax free is a beautiful arbitrage.
- lesuorac 4mo agoWell don't know your life but I suspect for a lot of people then it would've been more advantageous to not max out the 401k and retire pre-55 and spend the non-401k funds until 55. This largely being my gripe about the Trump accounts in that you're allocating funds into them that can't be touched without penalties until like 50 years later. And for most people this probably isn't even a benefit because you can lifetime gift ~$15 million so like unless you're Bezos just invest the money yourself and gift your kid whatever large value item they wanted.
- ozozozd 4mo ago
- glimshe 4mo agoThis isn't investment advice etc etc but there are many options that can capture large sections of the stock market without being exposed to the tech bubble (assuming there is one). Many people say you should stay invested in the SP500 anyway and I won't argue against that. But funds like VTV, DGRO, VIG, SCHD etc don't have the same level of exposure to tech, as well as international funds like VEA. Many 401ks allow you to invest in them through brokerage "link" options. Of course, do your research or talk to a pro before considering these.
- Terr_ 4mo ago> exposed to the tech bubble Aside, I think many people forget to account for their own job/career when thinking about diversification. Just working "in tech" means that industry is already an oversized part of my financial future by default, even before talking about investment stuff.
- fortran77 4mo agoYou can opt to put some or all of your 401K into a "Value fund" VVIAX (Vanguard) or FLCOX (Fidelity) to reduce your exposure to the highest of high-flying stocks. Of course, many small company 401Ks limit your investment options to a small family of high expense ratio funds...
- sfblah 4mo agoUnfortunately most people won't do that, either from ignorance or fear of missing out. Sometime in the next few years the chickens are going to come home to roost on the infinibubble, and I'm not really sure if the US financial system will weather it.
- eagerpace 4mo agoThe recent AI craze is really just LLMs. I feel like finance was likely already the most AI-adopted industry without LLMs and their impact the last few years may have taken them from “80 to 100” where most industries are going “10 to 50.” Go back to 2022 for a moment and I think this article is identical.
- ggm 4mo agoAn interesting variant of "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" played wholly in the private sector capital investment space. "When you're rich they let you" is big in this because a functional board of a company about to be vested with a massive debt overhang from a serial offender (X and xAI) would surely have said "could we NOT" about this and the whole model including A and B class voting shares suggests this is a control issue: given proper control models none of this could happen.
- richwater 4mo agoThe SP500 (the index the article is using for their example) literally requires profitability. Tesla wasn't includes for years and years because of it.
- rayiner 4mo agoIf SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized. The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 years and heard so much breathless cheerleading for web apps “changing the world” but now we have companies that really might change the world and it’s a scam?
- drawnwren 4mo agoBut if SpaceX does anything _other than become the most valuable company in history by delivering at least two technologies predicated on the largest stock rise in history based on a single technology (LLMs)_, the gains from zero to now will have been privatized and the losses will be born by the public. Which is what everyone is thinking about.
- sensanaty 4mo agoThe difference being, of course, that the photo app actually earns a profit, whereas the "EVs, robots and rocket ships" and ESPECIALLY the AI so far do not, and most likely will not any time soon.
- 4fterd4rk 4mo agoSpaceX has not been added to the S&P 500. They asked for the rules to be waived. S&P said no. I don't understand this article.
- Retric 4mo agoS&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.pdf https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.... Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this change result in the inclusion of illiquid securities in the index? A: Most indexes require a liquidity threshold for new constituents, often as a minimum share count or average daily trading value. For the Nasdaq-100®, securities must have a three-month average daily traded value of at least $5 million. Since only very large companies – typically with full market capitalizations over $100 billion as of March 2026 – would have qualified for fast entry, they are expected to easily and quickly meet this requirement. However, an average daily traded value of at least $5 million from the time of listing will still be required for fast entry candidates. Many indexes have included seasoning requirements to ensure that traditional IPOs undergo price discovery and stabilization before being included. These requirements were originally intended to prevent small or little-known companies from entering too soon. However, there is now a trend toward IPOs being larger and more mature than in the past. Companies expected to meet the fast entry threshold are likely to be among the world’s most significant and well-known firms. High investor interest and trading volumes should accelerate price discovery, further supporting a shorter seasoning period. Note that the seasoning period for companies outside of the Top 40 remains at three months. Several indexes have changed not just Nasdaq, but it’s one more people have heard about.
- adam_arthur 4mo agoHalf of the companies in the S&P 500 are trading at over 10x sales. SpaceX is just another one on top of the pile, whenever it gets included. Valuation multiples always mean revert on a long enough timeline... you can position for it today if you care to. https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price-to-sales https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price-to-sales
- dehrmann 4mo agoMatt Levine's take was essentially that if you're in the index fund game, you want the market. You don't pick and choose what parts of the market you want--that's active management. SPCX mostly isn't an issue because most indices include the float in the weight, so it isn't really even a $1T company.
- wetpaws 4mo ago[dead]
- skizm 4mo agoTo the same point I also don't want the index itself picking and choosing which companies to apply which rules to.
- Zigurd 4mo agoExcept they did pick and choose SPCX and did special favors by giving them a multiplier on the float and an exceedingly short interval before including it in indices.
- richwater 4mo agoThe only index that I know that float multiplied is Nasdaq which no one should even be investing in via their 401k anyway. Shitty index. Most consumers are utilizing some type of fund that tracks the CSRP, which float adjusts with no multiplier.
- dehrmann 4mo agoIt's not even the Nasdaq Composite, It's the Nasdaq 100. And yes, the Nasdaq 100 is a shitty index because Nasdaq vs. NYSE is a bit of an arbitrary, tradition-based way to get tech exposure. It's missing NYSE tech companies (Oracle, Dell, Spotify, Uber) but gets some non-tech like Costco and Pepsi. It'd be like only dating iPhone users. It's sort of a rough proxy for something, but you're better off choosing what you actually care about.
- tlogan 4mo agoI have a feeling the article and the comments on this trend would be very different if Elon Musk did not support Trump, even if he were still just as crazy and rich.
- amanaplanacanal 4mo agoRegardless of what you think of his politics, SpaceX is waaaay overvalued.
- undersuit 4mo agoJust a year ago the two were feuding. They're both lying conman with nothing to contribute. "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"
- petilon 4mo agoSpaceX is being valued as an AI company and yet they don't have a frontier AI model. Goldman Sachs is predicting 100x growth in 4 years for xAI, but it is a failed company with no frontier model. Top employees have left, and the company is renting out datacenter capacity. Satellite launch business has $4.1 billion in revenue, but only growing 8% annually. Most of the revenue is from Starlink. It has $11.4 billion in revenue, with around 50% growth. Blue Origin will offer them competition soon. X, formerly Twitter, has around $2B revenue, limited potential. The massive 2030 projections ($474B total, $144B Starlink, $322B AI) are Goldman Sachs' IPO roadshow model. The projections are so aggressive they feel scammy. SpaceX's 2025 revenue is $18.7 billion. A typical premium valuation for a top-tier tech company might be around 10x to 14x revenue, which would imply a strong IPO valuation of roughly $187 billion to $262 billion. The reason for the outlandish valuation is because of naive retail investors who believe Elon Musk has never failed at anything.
- richwater 4mo ago[flagged]
- petilon 4mo agoThose naive retail investors can stay irrational longer than I can stay solvent.
- bpodgursky 4mo agoSounds like the retirement funds should buy it then.
- sigmarule 4mo agoTime to insolvency and time to retirement, apples and oranges…
- burnerRhodov3 4mo ago2025 revenue, $18.7B. 2026 revenue is going to be ~$60B+ with the neocloud deals. Profit margins are going to be around 60%. 300% growth in a year and improving profit margins from a negative number to a $40B in profit in one year is... wild. Plus, terafab and merging with Tesla is a pretty big forward looking narrative. Arbing tokens instead of selling them to the consumer turned out the be the better business model. Turns out you don't need to have a frontier model and is actually the worse business model and letting everyone else burn the energy to compete.
- nelox 4mo ago[flagged]
- t1234s 4mo agoExpect more of this type of crap in the media now that SPCX is public. The guardian is notoriously anti-Musk and used to mention him by name in the article footer begging for money.
- awinter-py 4mo agoyes I am concerned about my downside puts
- keernan 4mo agoI have to say it is incredibly annoying that the wealthiest man in the world is so thin skinned that every post on Hacker News that talks about him in ways he doesn't like gets flagged. Of course Musk isn't doing it himself. He already bought Twitter so he could control what is said about him. And, as the wealthiest man in the world, he'd be stupid if he hasn't hired tens of thousands of people to monitor posts about him or his concerns and to downvote them (or whatever he wants). The cost to him for doing that would be similar to us spending ten cents.