4 ms·

I don’t think scam is the right word. The valuation and bank price targets are absolutely insane. I myself could never invest at those multiples. I think they a

by infecto 3mo ago

I don’t think scam is the right word. The valuation and bank price targets are absolutely insane. I myself could never invest at those multiples. I think they absolutely have governance problems but at the same time I have to admit he is a great financial engineer. Investors who do have conviction here most likely see this as the platform vehicle for everything else coming through the pipeline. Again I could not buy into that but I think it’s a far cry from a scam.

colechristensen 3mo ago
There's no room in the global economy to justify the kinds of numbers. Like spacex isn't going to be the world's first 100 trillion dollar company because there isn't that much money. That's nearly as high as the global GDP. Crazy growth rates are not possible.
- ahtihn 3mo ago
  > Like spacex isn't going to be the world's first 100 trillion dollar company because there isn't that much money. That doesn't really matter. As we saw with crypto valuations, market cap is just number of shares * last price. If you have 1 trillion shares and one is traded for $100 you have a 100 trillion market cap.
  - wyre 3mo ago
    SPCX has 555 million shares, thats $180,000 for a share for this 100 trillion market cap. Don't be ridiculous.
    - ahtihn 3mo ago
      Completely irrelevant to my point. The point was just this: you don't need $100 trillion to actually exist for that market cap to be possible.
      - wyre 3mo ago
        Sure, your point is factual, but it is unrealistic, which does make your point irrelevant.
- LorenDB 3mo ago
  > there isn't that much money It's almost as if SpaceX would have to use another planet's resources to generate money for that valuation. Oh wait...
  - dd8601fn 3mo ago
    Oh, bull. The market is not pricing in a theoretical gdp of Mars in 2070. They’re thinking “Tesla stock trades at absurd P/E for no reason other than vibes… this one might, too!”
epistasis 3mo ago
I'm unclear why you don't think it's a scam, because "he is a great financial engineer" seems awfully close to admitting that and then the "platform vehicle for everything else coming through the pipeline" seems to be the clincher that it is indeed a scam. For example, he's talking about data centers in space as the "everything else coming through the pipeline" and space data centers are an obvious engineering boondoggle, but sound cool to people that don't know anything about data center design or the challenges of space engineering (ie heat rejection)
- infecto 3mo ago
  I think you're collapsing a few different concepts together. Calling something a scam implied intentional deception about the underlying business. I don't think that's the same as selling an extremely optimistic vision at a valuation I personally think is unjustifiable. Plenty of companies have traded at prices that assumed almost everythign would go right. Most of those expectations eventually proved wrong but that doesn't retroactively make them scams. If the argument is that space data centers or some of these future initiatives are technically unrealistic, then criticize those ideas on their merits. If they're impossible or economically irrational, the market will eventually price that in, even if it takes a long time horizon.
  - epistasis 3mo ago
    The space data centers are intentional deception.
  - ryandvm 3mo ago
    Are you telling me that you believe the nobody at SpaceX has run the numbers and shown the richest person in the world that according to the known laws of physics each data center will have to have MANY ACRES of radiator? Fuck, even Grok would have told him this. The SpaceX IPO was intentional deception - no doubt.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      I realize you are passionate about this topic and maybe I am just not in that same bucket. I could take it or leave it. The valuation is absurd, the TAM is wild and I have no faith in the underlying business being able to grow that fast. Forward looking statements are rarely a scam no matter how silly they sound. You may be passionate enough to say intentional deception no doubt. I would argue I am happy to let the market figure it out. It may take a while but eventually over a long enough horizon it should figure it out.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
bobro 3mo ago
Can you spell out a bit more how these three thoughts live together consistently for you: 1) The price is insane 2) The price is a work of great financial engineering 3) The price isn’t a scam
- infecto 3mo ago
  They're perfectly consistent. An absured valuation isn't evidence of fraud. Exceptional capital formation isn't fraud either. You're conflating overpriced, good at raising money and scam as if they're synonyms. I am curious how the absurd bank price targets will play out in the long-term and if there will be any repercussions but its hard to immediately jump to scam but I realize this is the favorite fan-fic for folks on both sides.
  - oblio 3mo ago
    What about Musk gutting government agencies (including the SEC) through DOGE? Or Musk pushing NASDAQ & co to fast track SpaceX into their indexes, to force institutional investors to buy SpaceX? Or about Musk & others weakening analyst protection through the current US administration cutting legal failsafes so that now basically every analyst on the market never releases negative share projections? At which point do we accept that these billionaires push these systems until they crack, "legally", because they buy the people making the laws.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      I did not realize that is what we were discussing. Just because I don't like someone (I don't like musk) does not mean I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. I could never get behind the valuations, I don't generally like how he behaves but I also recognize that he historically has done a great job at financial engineering and serving as a hypeman, both can be true at the same time for me.
      - oblio 3mo ago
        > I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. The first points are just facts. Not "harshest classifications".
jagged-chisel 3mo ago
> I don’t think scam is the right word. The valuation and bank price targets are absolutely insane. I was hoping you were headed to "...beyond scam" into serious fraud or something. Regardless how this is categorized, everyone (banks, stock market, the executive branch) is complicit, and I think SpaceX stock should have stayed off the public market.
- infecto 3mo ago
  Luckily neither you or I get to make that decision.
  - jagged-chisel 3mo ago
    "Luckily"?
0x3f 3mo ago
I guess it depends on the framing: a scam perpetrated on whom? It's not a scam on active investors if you lock in a bump from guaranteed passive investors. The active investors will see gains from that bump. But on the passive investors? On wider society? If you spot the regulator looking the other way and try to sneak one past, is that legitimate, or sketchy? What if you recently had the influence to make them look the other way or be under-resourced? You could argue 'treason' is a better word than 'scam'.
- infecto 3mo ago
  I mean sure some indexes will include the name eventually but I would hope most “passive investors” are not investing in the Nasdaq 100. Folks have latched on to this like it’s the greatest fraud of all time. It’s not showing up in most normal passive portfolios anytime soon.
avaer 3mo ago
I guess the difference between "scam" and "financial engineer" is whether it works. If everyone loses their money it will be a scam. If people get rich he will be a financial engineer. These aren't two different things. The winning side will make up reasons why they are right, and the losing side will make up excuses why they were wrong.
- infecto 3mo ago
  What is this scheme he is getting away with? We all saw the numbers, it is an absolute absurd valuation. Like I said I would never make the bet but just because I don't like him, does not mean I will immediately call the scam card. Both can be true.
  - avaer 3mo ago
    When this gets listed, your retirement savings will be obligated to support it whether it makes sense or not. If it tanks AI, or the broader economy, everyone will pay the price. No matter what, your money is going to Elon and friends. That's one of the schemes. There's plenty of other schemes too, like merging in Twitter and an AI company to confuse investors and inflate valuations. I'm not calling it a scam either. I'm saying it entirely depends on whether this insane level of scheming causes people to lose a trillion dollars or gain a trillion dollars, then history will be rewritten to match the narrative.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      Why will my retirement savings be obligated to be part of it? No doubt it will be part of some indexes but I know for example mine it won’t.
  - lorecore 3mo ago
    It’s illegal for a CEO to make fraudulent promises regarding product delivery, timelines and financial projections. Musk does this regularly.
    - 3mo ago
k4rli 3mo ago
Almost all of their promises since start have just been corporate puffery and pure vaporware. Going to Mars, point-to-point Earth travel, Starship, reusable rockets... Same with all his other companies.
insane_dreamer 3mo ago
> I have to admit he is a great financial engineer. so was Madoff
- infecto 3mo ago
  But that was a ponzi. The numbers here are public. You can make forward looking statements. I could never underwrite that valuation but others have. Who knows will be correct but over the long horizon the market will figure it out.
vor_ 3mo ago
I must say, "great financial engineering" serves as an amazing spin on "scam."

by infecto 3mo ago

colechristensen 3mo ago

There's no room in the global economy to justify the kinds of numbers. Like spacex isn't going to be the world's first 100 trillion dollar company because there isn't that much money. That's nearly as high as the global GDP. Crazy growth rates are not possible.

ahtihn 3mo ago
> Like spacex isn't going to be the world's first 100 trillion dollar company because there isn't that much money. That doesn't really matter. As we saw with crypto valuations, market cap is just number of shares * last price. If you have 1 trillion shares and one is traded for $100 you have a 100 trillion market cap.
- wyre 3mo ago
  SPCX has 555 million shares, thats $180,000 for a share for this 100 trillion market cap. Don't be ridiculous.
  - ahtihn 3mo ago
    Completely irrelevant to my point. The point was just this: you don't need $100 trillion to actually exist for that market cap to be possible.
    - wyre 3mo ago
      Sure, your point is factual, but it is unrealistic, which does make your point irrelevant.
LorenDB 3mo ago
> there isn't that much money It's almost as if SpaceX would have to use another planet's resources to generate money for that valuation. Oh wait...
- dd8601fn 3mo ago
  Oh, bull. The market is not pricing in a theoretical gdp of Mars in 2070. They’re thinking “Tesla stock trades at absurd P/E for no reason other than vibes… this one might, too!”

epistasis 3mo ago

I'm unclear why you don't think it's a scam, because "he is a great financial engineer" seems awfully close to admitting that and then the "platform vehicle for everything else coming through the pipeline" seems to be the clincher that it is indeed a scam. For example, he's talking about data centers in space as the "everything else coming through the pipeline" and space data centers are an obvious engineering boondoggle, but sound cool to people that don't know anything about data center design or the challenges of space engineering (ie heat rejection)

infecto 3mo ago
I think you're collapsing a few different concepts together. Calling something a scam implied intentional deception about the underlying business. I don't think that's the same as selling an extremely optimistic vision at a valuation I personally think is unjustifiable. Plenty of companies have traded at prices that assumed almost everythign would go right. Most of those expectations eventually proved wrong but that doesn't retroactively make them scams. If the argument is that space data centers or some of these future initiatives are technically unrealistic, then criticize those ideas on their merits. If they're impossible or economically irrational, the market will eventually price that in, even if it takes a long time horizon.
- epistasis 3mo ago
  The space data centers are intentional deception.
- ryandvm 3mo ago
  Are you telling me that you believe the nobody at SpaceX has run the numbers and shown the richest person in the world that according to the known laws of physics each data center will have to have MANY ACRES of radiator? Fuck, even Grok would have told him this. The SpaceX IPO was intentional deception - no doubt.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    I realize you are passionate about this topic and maybe I am just not in that same bucket. I could take it or leave it. The valuation is absurd, the TAM is wild and I have no faith in the underlying business being able to grow that fast. Forward looking statements are rarely a scam no matter how silly they sound. You may be passionate enough to say intentional deception no doubt. I would argue I am happy to let the market figure it out. It may take a while but eventually over a long enough horizon it should figure it out.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

bobro 3mo ago

Can you spell out a bit more how these three thoughts live together consistently for you: 1) The price is insane 2) The price is a work of great financial engineering 3) The price isn’t a scam

infecto 3mo ago
They're perfectly consistent. An absured valuation isn't evidence of fraud. Exceptional capital formation isn't fraud either. You're conflating overpriced, good at raising money and scam as if they're synonyms. I am curious how the absurd bank price targets will play out in the long-term and if there will be any repercussions but its hard to immediately jump to scam but I realize this is the favorite fan-fic for folks on both sides.
- oblio 3mo ago
  What about Musk gutting government agencies (including the SEC) through DOGE? Or Musk pushing NASDAQ & co to fast track SpaceX into their indexes, to force institutional investors to buy SpaceX? Or about Musk & others weakening analyst protection through the current US administration cutting legal failsafes so that now basically every analyst on the market never releases negative share projections? At which point do we accept that these billionaires push these systems until they crack, "legally", because they buy the people making the laws.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    I did not realize that is what we were discussing. Just because I don't like someone (I don't like musk) does not mean I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. I could never get behind the valuations, I don't generally like how he behaves but I also recognize that he historically has done a great job at financial engineering and serving as a hypeman, both can be true at the same time for me.
    - oblio 3mo ago
      > I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. The first points are just facts. Not "harshest classifications".

jagged-chisel 3mo ago

> I don’t think scam is the right word. The valuation and bank price targets are absolutely insane. I was hoping you were headed to "...beyond scam" into serious fraud or something. Regardless how this is categorized, everyone (banks, stock market, the executive branch) is complicit, and I think SpaceX stock should have stayed off the public market.

infecto 3mo ago
Luckily neither you or I get to make that decision.
- jagged-chisel 3mo ago
  "Luckily"?

0x3f 3mo ago

I guess it depends on the framing: a scam perpetrated on whom? It's not a scam on active investors if you lock in a bump from guaranteed passive investors. The active investors will see gains from that bump. But on the passive investors? On wider society? If you spot the regulator looking the other way and try to sneak one past, is that legitimate, or sketchy? What if you recently had the influence to make them look the other way or be under-resourced? You could argue 'treason' is a better word than 'scam'.

infecto 3mo ago
I mean sure some indexes will include the name eventually but I would hope most “passive investors” are not investing in the Nasdaq 100. Folks have latched on to this like it’s the greatest fraud of all time. It’s not showing up in most normal passive portfolios anytime soon.

avaer 3mo ago

I guess the difference between "scam" and "financial engineer" is whether it works. If everyone loses their money it will be a scam. If people get rich he will be a financial engineer. These aren't two different things. The winning side will make up reasons why they are right, and the losing side will make up excuses why they were wrong.

infecto 3mo ago
What is this scheme he is getting away with? We all saw the numbers, it is an absolute absurd valuation. Like I said I would never make the bet but just because I don't like him, does not mean I will immediately call the scam card. Both can be true.
- avaer 3mo ago
  When this gets listed, your retirement savings will be obligated to support it whether it makes sense or not. If it tanks AI, or the broader economy, everyone will pay the price. No matter what, your money is going to Elon and friends. That's one of the schemes. There's plenty of other schemes too, like merging in Twitter and an AI company to confuse investors and inflate valuations. I'm not calling it a scam either. I'm saying it entirely depends on whether this insane level of scheming causes people to lose a trillion dollars or gain a trillion dollars, then history will be rewritten to match the narrative.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    Why will my retirement savings be obligated to be part of it? No doubt it will be part of some indexes but I know for example mine it won’t.
- lorecore 3mo ago
  It’s illegal for a CEO to make fraudulent promises regarding product delivery, timelines and financial projections. Musk does this regularly.
  - 3mo ago

k4rli 3mo ago

Almost all of their promises since start have just been corporate puffery and pure vaporware. Going to Mars, point-to-point Earth travel, Starship, reusable rockets... Same with all his other companies.

insane_dreamer 3mo ago

> I have to admit he is a great financial engineer. so was Madoff

infecto 3mo ago
But that was a ponzi. The numbers here are public. You can make forward looking statements. I could never underwrite that valuation but others have. Who knows will be correct but over the long horizon the market will figure it out.

vor_ 3mo ago

I must say, "great financial engineering" serves as an amazing spin on "scam."