3 ms·

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a gover

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you can HODL.

nh23423fefe 2mo ago
Clearly logic doesn't matter if you'll say Treasuries are less safe than SpaceX because reasons.
- bigbuppo 2mo ago
  Among people with a certain world view, the US government has been days away from defaulting on its obligations for decades on end. These sorts of people tend to like Elon Musk for some reason.
chollida1 2mo ago
> Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you can HODL. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that SPCX is safe because of the government backstop/bailout, but government bonds are less safe. I'll take the other side of your claim here and say SPCX goes bankrupt before the US government does
rurp 2mo ago
SpaceX isn't more secure than the government because the government might bail it out in the future, that makes no logical sense. Obviously SpaceX is a higher default risk than the entity supposedly backstopping it. Not to mention that stock holders are hardly guaranteed to be made whole if the company crashes hard enough to need a bailout.
- zrobotics 2mo ago
  Plus, couldn't a theoretical bailout come with pretty onerous terms and focus on just the actual space launch & starlink divisions? It isn't hard to argue that they are as critical of a defense contractor as Lockheed. However, supposedly ~80% of the value is AI and Twitter, which certainly aren't in the same category. I agree that stockholders would likely not come out well at all in a theoretical bailout. A bailout would likely involve chapter 11 or something similar, and shareholders would be last in line behind other creditors. They might get additional protection if it looked like the collapse of the company would significantly affect retirement and pension funds, but that hypothetical certainly doesn't give me any additional faith in the stock.
root_axis 2mo ago
"Gambling on a bailout" doesn't sound like an appealing investment prospect.
Zigurd 2mo ago
How many government bailouts, like GM for example, continued to trade at astronomical ratios of price to revenue, never mind earnings? Corruption can work miracles and we are in a Golden Age now, but still there are practicalities. Beltway bandits have been at this game for 100 years, and look at their stock price.

nh23423fefe 2mo ago

Clearly logic doesn't matter if you'll say Treasuries are less safe than SpaceX because reasons.

bigbuppo 2mo ago
Among people with a certain world view, the US government has been days away from defaulting on its obligations for decades on end. These sorts of people tend to like Elon Musk for some reason.

chollida1 2mo ago

> Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you can HODL. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that SPCX is safe because of the government backstop/bailout, but government bonds are less safe. I'll take the other side of your claim here and say SPCX goes bankrupt before the US government does

rurp 2mo ago

SpaceX isn't more secure than the government because the government might bail it out in the future, that makes no logical sense. Obviously SpaceX is a higher default risk than the entity supposedly backstopping it. Not to mention that stock holders are hardly guaranteed to be made whole if the company crashes hard enough to need a bailout.

zrobotics 2mo ago
Plus, couldn't a theoretical bailout come with pretty onerous terms and focus on just the actual space launch & starlink divisions? It isn't hard to argue that they are as critical of a defense contractor as Lockheed. However, supposedly ~80% of the value is AI and Twitter, which certainly aren't in the same category. I agree that stockholders would likely not come out well at all in a theoretical bailout. A bailout would likely involve chapter 11 or something similar, and shareholders would be last in line behind other creditors. They might get additional protection if it looked like the collapse of the company would significantly affect retirement and pension funds, but that hypothetical certainly doesn't give me any additional faith in the stock.

root_axis 2mo ago

"Gambling on a bailout" doesn't sound like an appealing investment prospect.

Zigurd 2mo ago

How many government bailouts, like GM for example, continued to trade at astronomical ratios of price to revenue, never mind earnings? Corruption can work miracles and we are in a Golden Age now, but still there are practicalities. Beltway bandits have been at this game for 100 years, and look at their stock price.