lol they are now against tech too, they lost and making sure lose is certain. how do they think future growth will come to their feet? with old population and blocking investments?
leopoldj2026-05-30 00:24
ENGLISH (원문)
New York City Comptrollers published similar concerns [1]. I suppose you could apply your point equally to NYC these days :-) 1. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/letter-to-spacex-re-ipo-...
red-iron-pine2026-05-30 00:30
ENGLISH (원문)
is anyone surprised? the IPO documents are a disaster, and the finance-tube talking heads are all tearing it to shreds
rvz2026-05-30 00:38
ENGLISH (원문)
Good. Would love to buy SpaceX stock at a 90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction.
SilverElfin2026-05-30 00:48
ENGLISH (원문)
It’s obviously a scam. First xai acquires failing Twitter and then SpaceX acquires xai? At a made up valuation number that’s too high? The voting structure of SpaceX prevents Elon from ever being held accountable. Not to mention that the revenue and profits are simply not enough to justify the desired value.
thesimon2026-05-30 00:57
ENGLISH (원문)
Matt Levine described it well (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...) > The deal, with SpaceX, is that Elon Musk runs it however he wants, and he does weird stuff, and you have to trust him, and if you don’t like it you can’t complain. > When SpaceX acquired xAI a few months ago, did a special committee of independent directors approve the transaction? Did Musk recuse himself from negotiations? Was the price set by independent valuation experts using a rigorous process? Did outside shareholders sue to block the deal? Stop. Musk wanted SpaceX to buy xAI, so it did. > [...] Surely SpaceX has created all that shareholder value more because Musk does what he wants than in spite of Musk doing what he wants; it is hard to accidentally create $1.75 trillion of value. SpaceX’s shareholders signed up for this deal — letting Musk cook — and have been rewarded;
vondur2026-05-30 01:02
ENGLISH (원문)
Isn't that how Facebook is ran too? Basically Zuckerberg's private company, that in theory is public?
lokar2026-05-30 01:05
ENGLISH (원문)
How can I transfer my shares of VTI for an interest in this pension fund, before it’s too late?
DivingForGold2026-05-30 01:07
ENGLISH (원문)
I have just crossed sold all my investment and the Danish pensions off my list, unreliable.
hparadiz2026-05-30 01:11
ENGLISH (원문)
I literally don't care if SpaceX stock is at a loss (it won't be lol) It's worth owning just to get your name in the history books.
hparadiz2026-05-30 01:13
ENGLISH (원문)
Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster.
fluidcruft2026-05-30 01:15
ENGLISH (원문)
It's really concerning given how the indexes are changing rules to fast-track SpaceX being forced into index funds. S&P is also working on updates to S&P 500 to force it down everyone's throats quickly and algorithmically.
zerotolerance2026-05-30 01:16
ENGLISH (원문)
Should have renamed the company xGoodwill.
aNoob70002026-05-30 01:17
ENGLISH (원문)
Add Anthropic and OpenAI to the list. Companies that are bleeding money. Personally, a company should be making money before adding it to the index.
pu_pe2026-05-30 01:18
ENGLISH (원문)
Wouldn't the same argument apply against Tesla?
nolok2026-05-30 01:18
ENGLISH (원문)
Merging the failling companies into the other ones is the usual Elon thing, Solar City didn't get acqui-merged into Tesla for its great result. It's not a "scam" in the traditionnal sense, it's riding the bubble while it's there, stock value is "supposed" to be about the company performance and potential but technically it doesn't have to be, it's about what some people are willing to pay for it (the stock, not the product the company sells) and that's all. That's also why tesla has such a valuation. You can see it in the comments even here and other thread about this IPO, some people read the numbers, and some have just religious sounding comments about it being the biggest revolution ever or making the history book etc ... And that's also why they need to keep elon as CEO because in the scenario where they remove it and get the best car company CEO and become a great regular car company that works and ships lots of great car ... Their valuation would be reduced a factor of ten
mohsen12026-05-30 01:24
ENGLISH (원문)
There is a market for an S&P 500 ETF without those companies. I'll immediately switch over
tgv2026-05-30 01:28
ENGLISH (원문)
BY getting a job in Denmark in the sector that this pension fund covers. It's a "member-owned pension fund for academics."
댓글
18